SANTIAGO v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-26No. No. 20-70104

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied. The court affirmed the agency's dismissal of the appeal, finding that the petitioners waived their asylum arguments by failing to challenge the time-bar determination and that substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that they failed to establish either a nexus to a protected ground or a pattern of persecution necessary for withholding of removal.

Joaquin Gaspar Santiago and his son, both Guatemalan nationals, sought court review of an immigration board's decision upholding the denial of their asylum and withholding of removal applications. The petitioners did not contest the agency's finding that their asylum claim was filed too late, thereby waiving that argument on appeal. Regarding their withholding of removal claim, the court found substantial evidence supporting the agency's conclusion that the petitioners had not demonstrated a connection between their circumstances and a legally protected basis for relief, nor had they shown a pattern of persecution against indigenous Mayans in Guatemala that would qualify them for protection.

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

Key issues

Whether asylum application was time-barred
Whether petitioners established nexus to protected ground for withholding of removal
Whether pattern or practice of persecution against indigenous Mayans was demonstrated
Whether immigration judge bias violated due process

Procedural posture

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing the petitioners' appeal of an immigration judge's denial of asylum and withholding of removal.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Joaquin Gaspar Santiago and his son, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judges (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Petitioners do not challenge the agencys dispositive determination that their asylum application is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a partys opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to their asylum claim.

Petitioners also do not challenge the agencys determination that they failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. Id. Substantial evidence supports the agencys determination that petitioners failed to show a pattern or practice of persecution against indigenous Mayans in Guatemala. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that evidence of widespread discrimination against particular groups did not compel the conclusion that there was a pattern or practice of persecution). Thus, petitioners’ withholding of removal claim fails.

While we do not condone the statements made by the IJ, petitioners’ contentions concerning IJ bias fail. See Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1159 (9th Cir. 2019) (“A petitioner must show that the denial of his or her right to a neutral fact-finder potentially affected the outcome of the proceedings.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.