Soriano-Guzman v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 12, 2024
• Docket: 22-1660
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 12 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WALTER EVANS SORIANO-GUZMAN, No. 22-1660 Agency No. Petitioner, A216-403-214 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted January 10, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, MELLOY, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.***

Walter Evans Soriano-Guzman (Soriano-Guzman), a native and citizen of El

Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ)

* 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). *** The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, United States Senior Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. denying withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against

Torture (CAT) following reasonable fear review proceedings. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.1

We review the IJ’s decision for substantial evidence. See Andrade-Garcia v.

Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 2016), as amended. “Under the substantial

evidence standard, we uphold the agency’s determinations unless, based on the

evidence, any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the

contrary.” Hermosillo v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Soriano-Guzman

failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture. The gang

members who beat and extorted Soriano-Guzman were motivated by financial

gain. See Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1025 (9th Cir. 2023)

(explaining that “exclusive financial motivation cannot establish a nexus” to a

protected ground). And although Soriano-Guzman stated that police targeted him

for being a suspected gang member, this testimony failed to establish torture or a

likelihood of 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

1 The Government has withdrawn its argument that we lack jurisdiction.

2 22-1660 or degrading treatment or punishment that do not amount to torture.”).2

PETITION DENIED.

2 The temporary stay of removal shall remain in place until the mandate issues. Soriano-Guzman’s Motion for Stay of Removal is otherwise denied.

3 22-1660