NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERTO ANTONIO RAMIREZ- No. 20-73363
PINEDA,
Agency No. A078-461-089
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 9, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: HURWITZ and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN,*** District
Judge.
*
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).
***
The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
Roberto Ramirez-Pineda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review
of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal from the
order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) that denied his application for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the
petition for review.
We have jurisdiction to review BIA decisions under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and
review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law
de novo. Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1096–67 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
“To reverse the BIA, we must determine that the evidence not only supports [a
contrary] conclusion, but compels it—and also compels the further conclusion that
the petitioner meets the requisite standard for obtaining relief.” Sanjaa v. Sessions,
863 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotations omitted).
Here, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Ramirez-
Pineda failed to demonstrate a nexus between a protected ground and his fear of
future persecution. Substantial evidence in the record shows that Ramirez-Pineda
was personally targeted after he shot a gang member in the foot during routine
policing. “If a former police officer is singled out for reprisal, not because of his
status as a former police officer, but because of his role in disrupting particular
criminal activity, he is not considered, without more, to have been targeted as a
member of a particular social group.” Ayala, 640 F.3d at 1098 (cleaned up); cf.
2
Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 505–06 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding former police
officers were targeted as a group when gang members killed task force members
without regard to their involvement in a particular enforcement operation). The
record here does not show or compel the conclusion that he was targeted for his
membership in the protected group of former police officers.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Ramirez-
Pineda failed to demonstrate that the government of El Salvador is unwilling or
unable to protect him from future torture. While the record includes evidence of
widespread gang violence it also includes evidence of increased security forces by
the Salvadoran government to combat gang violence. The mixed record does not
compel the reversal of the BIA decision. Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th
Cir. 2011). Nor does the record compel the conclusion that if removed Ramirez-
Pineda would face a more likely than not risk of torture inflicted by or with the
consent of the Salvadoran government. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); see Tamang v.
Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th Cir. 2010). Therefore, the agency properly
denied his CAT claim.
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it declined to consider a
brief filed over two months past the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(1)
(giving the BIA discretion to permit late filings). Still, Ramirez-Pineda was not
prejudiced considering the BIA addressed the merits of his appeal in its opinion.
3
PETITION DENIED.
4