GUARTAZACA DUTAN v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-28No. No. 20-70826

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court denied in part and dismissed in part the petition for review, upholding the denial of asylum and withholding of removal because substantial evidence supported that the applicant failed to show his harm was based on a protected ground, and dismissing his other claims due to lack of jurisdiction.

Pablo Guartazaca-Dutan, an Ecuadorian citizen, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge denied all three requests, and the BIA upheld that decision. On appeal, the court found substantial evidence that Guartazaca-Dutan did not establish that any harm he experienced or feared resulted from a protected ground such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group—rather, the record supported that any mistreatment was motivated by personal reasons unrelated to protected grounds.

The court also determined it lacked authority to review Guartazaca-Dutan's political opinion argument because he never raised it before the BIA, and he similarly failed to adequately contest the BIA's finding that he had waived his Convention Against Torture claim by not specifically addressing it in his opening brief.

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

Key issues

Whether applicant established persecution on account of a protected ground
Waiver of political opinion claim by failure to raise it before the BIA
Waiver of Convention Against Torture claim by insufficient briefing

Procedural posture

The petitioner appealed an immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, which the BIA affirmed, and the court reviewed the petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 applying the substantial evidence standard.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Pablo Guartazaca-Dutan, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys determination that Guartazaca-Dutan failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears in Ecuador was or would be on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see also Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013) (“mistreatment motivated purely by personal retribution will not give rise to a valid asylum claim”). We lack jurisdiction to consider Guartazaca-Dutans contentions as to a political opinion claim because he did not raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to consider claims not raised to the BIA). Thus, Guartazaca-Dutans asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

In his opening brief, Guartazaca-Dutan does not contest the BIAs determination that he waived challenge to the IJs denial of his CAT claim, see Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a partys opening brief are waived), and we lack jurisdiction to consider his contentions as to the merits of his CAT claim, see Barron, 358 F.3d at 677-78.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.