FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 12 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARDO TULIO RIVAS-GARCIA, No. 15-73022
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-199-446
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Mardo Tulio Rivas-Garcia, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
seeks review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”),
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision that denied his
*
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).
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. We review the agency’s factual findings for
substantial evidence, Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018), and we
review a due process challenge de novo, Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825,
830 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition.
1. Petitioner asserts that he fears harm because he is a member of a
particular social group—land-owning coffee growers or his family. But the IJ
found, and the BIA affirmed as not clearly erroneous, that Petitioner fails to show
that either the threats he received or the murders of two of his siblings were “on
account of” his membership in either purported social group. Rather, Petitioner
was the unfortunate victim of random criminal activity. The evidence does not
compel a contrary conclusion. Because Petitioner fails to establish nexus, the BIA
permissibly denied his applications for asylum and withholding of removal.1 See
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that an alien’s
desire to be free from random criminal activity bears “no nexus” to a protected
ground).
1
Petitioner does not challenge the denial of protection under the Convention
Against Torture, so we do not address that issue.
2
2. Petitioner argues that the IJ violated his right to due process by
threatening to make an adverse credibility finding if Petitioner reviewed his written
declaration during the hearing. It would have been premature for the IJ to make
such a finding before the hearing had concluded. See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d
1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2005) (When assessing an alien’s credibility “it is incumbent
upon the IJ to view each portion of an alien’s testimony . . . in light of all of the
evidence presented.”). But the BIA correctly held that, even assuming that the IJ
violated his right to due process by cutting off a material line of inquiry, Petitioner
fails to show that he was prejudiced. See Padilla-Martinez, 770 F.3d at 830 (“To
prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of
rights and prejudice.”).
PETITION DENIED.
3