Vincent Carrillo v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 2, 2023
• Docket: 18-72811
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 2 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VINCENT PABLO CARRILLO, AKA No. 18-72811 Vincent Pablo Carrillo, Agency No. A205-714-031 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted March 2, 2023** San Francisco, California

Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Vincent Pablo Carrillo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his

appeal from a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his applications for

* 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). withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Carrillo

failed to show the required nexus between the harm he suffered in Guatemala and a

protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland, 993

F.3d 743, 750–51 (9th Cir. 2021). To secure withholding of removal, Carrillo

must demonstrate his life would be threatened in his country of origin “because of .

. . membership in a particular social group.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); see also

Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2019). Carrillo asserts

membership in a particular social group of “family members who actively oppose

gang membership and tactics against them,” citing Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d

1077 (9th Cir. 2014). Carrillo argues that because he opposed gang members, “he

warrants protection.” As the BIA noted, Carrillo’s opposition to gangs was not as

visible as that in Pirir-Boc, and Carrillo fails to adequately demonstrate that his

proposed social group is cognizable. Because Carrillo fails to demonstrate the

harms he suffered were on account of his membership in a particular social group,

substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Carrillo has not

established eligibility for withholding of removal.

2. Similarly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that

Carrillo is ineligible for relief under CAT. Carrillo fails to offer anything more

2 than speculation that he will be tortured if he is returned to Guatemala, and thus

fails to meet his burden to establish relief under CAT. See, e.g., Nagoulko v. INS,

333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION DENIED.