FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN FERNANDEZ UNZUETA, No. 10-70288
Petitioner, Agency No. A036-721-032
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 10, 2015**
Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT, GRABER, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Martin Fernandez Unzueta petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") decision denying relief from removal. For the
reasons that follow, we deny the petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The parties have framed the main issue as whether Petitioner was convicted
of a particularly serious crime, and there have been extensive proceedings and
briefing on that topic. Nevertheless, we resolve the case without reaching that
question.
1. The immigration judge, whose decision the BIA adopted, did not abuse
his discretion in denying asylum on the ground that Petitioner did not warrant relief
as a matter of discretion. See generally Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134, 1139
(9th Cir. 2004) (discussing the scope of our review of the BIA’s discretionary
denial of asylum). Indeed, Petitioner did not challenge, in this court, this
alternative ground of decision.
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner
does not have an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution warranting
withholding of removal. See Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1229 (9th Cir. 2002)
(stating the standard of review). The BIA held that Petitioner established past
persecution and therefore was entitled to a presumption of future persecution. The
BIA next held that the government had met its burden of rebutting that
presumption. Although we might not have reached the same result, the record does
not "compel a conclusion" that the BIA erred. Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791
(9th Cir. 2014). The BIA permissibly relied on general changes in
2
Mexico—substantive changes in Mexico regarding the rights of homosexuals and
increased protection against homophobic harassment—as well as facts specific to
Petitioner—his "repeated voluntary trips to Mexico subsequent to the persecutory
incidents." Accordingly, the BIA conducted the necessary "individualized analysis
of how changed conditions will affect the specific petitioner’s situation."
Garrovillas v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010, 1017 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
3. For similar reasons, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of
relief under the Convention Against Torture.
Petition DENIED.
3