NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 26 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JACINTO CHAVEZ-CORIO, No. 15-70166
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-407-352
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 24, 2020**
Before: SCHROEDER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Jacinto Chavez-Corio, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo whether a
petitioner has been afforded due process. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614,
620 (9th Cir. 2006). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny
the petition for review.
The record does not support Chavez-Corio’s contention that the agency
“engaged in a de facto adverse credibility finding . . . tainting their analysis and
prejudicing” him. In any event, the agency’s determination did not turn on
Chavez-Corio’s credibility.
Chavez-Corio’s withholding of removal claim fails because substantial
evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that he failed to establish he would be
persecuted on account of a protected ground. He remained without incident in
Guatemala for three years after his father was murdered. Moreover, his three
sisters, who now co-own the land with the petitioner, still live there without having
had any problems since relocation. Considered in this light, the IJ and the BIA
correctly determined that his alleged fear of future persecution based on his
1
Chavez-Corio does not challenge the agency’s conclusion that his asylum
application was untimely.
2 15-70166
ownership of inherited land was not plausible. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d
1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by
criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus
to a protected ground”); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An
applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when
similarly situated family members continue to live in the country without incident
or when the applicant has returned to the country without incident.”) (citations
omitted), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ramadan v.
Gonzalez, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007).
Although the government contends that Chavez-Corio waived any challenge
to the agency’s determination that he is not eligible for CAT protection by failing
to adequately brief the issue, we have discretion to review that determination. See
Alcaraz v. INS, 384 F.3d 1150, 1161 (9th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Chavez-Corio failed to
show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by or with the consent or
acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589
F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-70166