NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERTO BLANCO-MARTINEZ, No. 17-70033
Petitioner, Agency No. A074-438-408
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted January 11, 2021
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,**Judge.
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 Judge’s (IJ) denial of his requests
for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s 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 BIA’s denial of asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under CAT.
To qualify for asylum, a petitioner’s “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 Petitioner’s 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 BIA’s 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,
2
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 BIA’s
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 BIA’s 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-Martinez’s concerns regarding the Salvadoran police’s 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
3
omitted).
For the foregoing reasons, Blanco-Martinez’s petition for review is
DENIED.
4