Ruiz Godor v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 22, 2024
• Docket: 22-2080
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS EDUARDO RUIZ GODOR, No. 22-2080 AKA Carlos Eduardo Ruiz Godoy, Agency No. A205-411-468 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 17, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: COLLINS, H.A. THOMAS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Eduardo Ruiz Godor petitions for review of a decision of the Board

of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming a decision by an Immigration Judge

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). (“IJ”) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Because the BIA affirmed without

opinion, we review the IJ’s decision directly. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4); Falcon

Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir. 2003). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

We review for abuse of discretion the IJ’s determination that Godor was

convicted of a particularly serious crime and are “limited to ensuring that the

agency relied on the ‘appropriate factors’ and ‘[]proper evidence.’” Avendano-

Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015) (alteration in original)

(quoting Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673, 676 (9th Cir. 2010)). We review the

agency’s denial of CAT relief for substantial evidence. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861

F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017).

1. The IJ did not abuse his discretion in finding that Godor was ineligible for

asylum and withholding of removal because he committed a particularly serious

crime. See Bare v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952, 966 (9th Cir. 2020). The IJ appropriately

considered “the nature of the conviction” based on the elements of California Penal

Code § 243.9(a), “the underlying facts and circumstances” of the offense,

including Godor’s account of the incident, “and the [two-year] sentence imposed.”

Avendano-Hernandez, 800 F.3d at 1077 (quoting Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d

1095, 1107 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc)); Bare, 975 F.3d at 961–62. “We may not

2 22-2080 reweigh the evidence and reach our own determination about the crime’s

seriousness.” Avendano-Hernandez, 800 F.3d at 1077.

2. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Godor was ineligible

for CAT protection. Godor did not establish that the Salvadoran police’s alleged

mistreatment of him or the indirect threats he received from gang members rose to

the level of past torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2) (“Torture is an extreme form

of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel,

inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that do not amount to torture.”).

Godor’s fear that police may arrest him again does not alone compel the

conclusion that he faces a likelihood of torture if removed to El Salvador. See Guo

v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1217 (9th Cir. 2018). Nor does police officers’ past

mistreatment of Godor compel the conclusion that the Salvadoran government

would consent or acquiesce to his torture by gangs.

DENIED.1

1 Godor’s motion for a stay of removal (Dkt. No. 2) is denied as moot.

3 22-2080