Filed: Oct. 29, 2020
Latest Update: Oct. 29, 2020
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 29 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAUL RICARDO JACOBO, No. 15-70864 Petitioner, Agency No. A201-237-293 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 26, 2020** Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Raul Ricardo Jacobo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for re
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 29 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAUL RICARDO JACOBO, No. 15-70864 Petitioner, Agency No. A201-237-293 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 26, 2020** Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Raul Ricardo Jacobo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for rev..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 29 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL RICARDO JACOBO, No. 15-70864
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-237-293
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 26, 2020**
Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Raul Ricardo Jacobo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
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 agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th
Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Jacobo failed
to establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Gu v.
Gonzales,
454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (detention, beating, and
interrogation did not compel a finding of past persecution); Hoxha v. Ashcroft,
319
F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (harassment, threats, and one beating unconnected
with any particular threat did not compel a finding that past harm rose to the level
of persecution).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Jacobo
failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution by the police in El
Salvador. See Nagoulko v. INS,
333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of
future persecution “too speculative”). Further, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that Jacobo failed to establish he would be persecuted by
gangs on account of a family-based social group or a political opinion. See INS v.
Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some
evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); Barrios v. Holder,
581 F.3d 849,
856 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting political opinion claim where petitioner did not
present sufficient evidence of political or ideological opposition to the gang’s
ideals or that the gang imputed a particular political belief to the petitioner); see
2 15-70864
also Zetino v. Holder,
622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire
to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by
gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”).
In his opening brief, Jacobo does not challenge the agency’s determinations
as to his remaining social groups. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder,
706 F.3d 1072,
1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived).
Thus, Jacobo’s withholding of removal claim fails.
As stated in the court’s April 10, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-70864