LAW.coLAW.co

BENOIT v. WILKINSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-22No. No. 17-70179

Summary

Holding. The court denied Benoit's petition for review, concluding that substantial evidence supported the agency's rejection of his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture claims.

Thomas Benoit, a Haitian citizen, challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief claims. The court found substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that any harm Benoit experienced or feared was not inflicted because of his membership in a protected category—such as political opinion or particular social group—but rather resulted from common criminal activity and gang violence unrelated to protected grounds. The court also found substantial evidence that Benoit failed to demonstrate it was more probable than not that he would face torture by the Haitian government or with its consent or involvement upon return.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Whether harm from criminal violence and gang activity qualifies as persecution on account of a protected ground
  • Whether applicant demonstrated likelihood of government torture under Convention Against Torture
  • Substantial evidence standard of review for agency factual findings in immigration cases

Procedural posture

Benoit petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming the immigration judge's denial of his asylum and related relief applications.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Thomas Benoit, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys determination that Benoit failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears in Haiti was or would be on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicants “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Benoits asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agencys denial of CAT relief because Benoit failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Haiti. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).

As stated in the courts March 27, 2017 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.