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. Substantial evidence supports the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of the appeal and the Immigration Judge's denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief.

Roberto Blanco-Martinez, a Salvadoran national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge denied his requests, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. On judicial review, the court examined whether substantial evidence supported the denials.

The court found that Blanco-Martinez failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution necessary for asylum. His testimony about potential future harm was speculative rather than grounded in objective evidence demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of persecution based on his military background. Although he was not explicitly notified at his final hearing that corroboration was required, he had multiple prior hearings to present supporting evidence and failed to raise this procedural issue on appeal, resulting in waiver of the argument.

Regarding withholding of removal, Blanco-Martinez could not meet the higher standard required because he had not satisfied the lower asylum threshold. For Convention Against Torture relief, presenting general evidence of violence and criminality in El Salvador was insufficient without showing he would be specifically targeted. The government's inability to control gang violence does not constitute acquiescence to torture under the applicable legal standard.

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 general country conditions evidence suffices for asylum or withholding of removal without showing individual targeting
Whether government inability to stop gang violence constitutes acquiescence to torture under CAT
Whether procedural notice defect regarding corroboration requirements was waived on appeal

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 and removal-related 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.