BLANCO MARTINEZ v. WILKINSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-26No. No. 17-70033

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied, affirming the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of the appeal and the immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under the CAT.

Roberto Blanco-Martinez, a Salvadoran national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The immigration judge denied all three requests, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. On appeal, Blanco-Martinez argued he had a well-founded fear of persecution based on his prior military affiliation and concerns about gang violence in El Salvador.

The court found that substantial evidence supported the denial of all relief. Regarding asylum, Blanco-Martinez failed to show that his feared persecution was objectively reasonable—his concerns were speculative rather than based on concrete evidence demonstrating a realistic likelihood of harm. Although the immigration judge did not explicitly notify him that corroborating evidence was required, Blanco-Martinez had multiple opportunities across four hearings to provide such evidence and did not do so. Additionally, he waived any argument about inadequate notice by failing to raise it in his opening brief.

For withholding of removal, because Blanco-Martinez did not meet the lower standard for asylum, he necessarily failed the higher standard required for withholding. Similarly, his CAT claim failed because he presented only general evidence of violence and criminality in El Salvador without demonstrating he would be specifically targeted for torture, and he did not establish that the Salvadoran government acquiesced in torture—mere awareness of violence without the power to prevent it does not constitute acquiescence.

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

Key issues

Whether petitioner established a well-founded fear of persecution based on prior military affiliation
Whether petitioner's concerns constituted objective evidence or mere speculation
Whether substantial evidence supported denial of withholding of removal
Whether petitioner met requirements for relief under the Convention Against Torture

Procedural posture

Blanco-Martinez petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Roberto Blanco-Martinez (Blanco-Martinez), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judges (IJ) denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the BIAs conclusion that an applicant has not established eligibility for asylum, see Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 2013), and relief under CAT, Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIAs denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT.

To qualify for asylum, a petitioners “well-founded fear of persecution must be both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.” Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 924 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Blanco-Martinez did not present evidence showing that the chain of events he speculates about in his testimony is likely to occur or that his prior military affiliation would be broadcasted such that he had an objectively reasonable fear of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1021–22 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that Petitioners fears based on information gathered from family and friends and a brief detention constituted “speculation” and not “objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”). Thus, substantial evidence supports the BIAs conclusion that Blanco-Martinez did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i).

Although the IJ did not give Blanco-Martinez notice that corroboration of his testimony was required or an opportunity to produce it at his final hearing, Blanco-Martinez had multiple opportunities to corroborate his testimony in four hearings. Furthermore, any argument that Blanco-Martinez did not receive sufficient notice and opportunity to present corroborative evidence under Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1093 (9th Cir. 2011), is waived on appeal because he failed to raise the issue in his opening brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

Because Blanco-Martinez failed to meet his burden for asylum, the BIAs determination that Blanco-Martinez failed to meet the higher standard withholding of removal requires is also supported by substantial evidence. Alvarez-Santos v. I.N.S., 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIAs denial of withholding of removal under the CAT. Blanco-Martinez presented evidence of widespread criminality and violence in El Salvador, without sufficiently showing how he would specifically be targeted, which is not enough to establish eligibility for relief under the CAT. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). Blanco-Martinezs concerns regarding the Salvadoran polices inability to protect him from gang violence, are not enough to establish government acquiescence to torture because “[a] government does not acquiesce in the torture of its citizens merely because it is aware of torture but powerless to stop it.” Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

For the foregoing reasons, Blanco-Martinezs petition for review is DENIED.