NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 14 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAURO MATEO TOMAS, No. 19-72442
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-899-440
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 8, 2023**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Mauro Mateo Tomas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying his request for
*
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).
asylum and withholding of removal. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a). We review de novo questions of law. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009,
1012 (9th Cir. 2009). “We review for substantial evidence factual findings
underlying the BIA’s determination that a petitioner is not eligible for asylum [or]
withholding of removal . . . .” Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831
(9th Cir. 2022). Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite only
those facts necessary to decide the petition.
The IJ cited concerns regarding Mateo Tomas’s credibility, but the BIA did
not rely on credibility findings. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that
Mateo-Tomas did not establish that his membership in a protected group was or
will be at least “one central reason” for persecution, as required for asylum,
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009), nor that such
membership was “a reason” for persecution, as required for withholding of
removal, Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358–59 (9th Cir. 2017).
On appeal, Mateo Tomas addresses only the nexus to membership in his
father’s family. His sole argument is that this court should remand the case
because the BIA cited Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) [hereinafter
A-B- I], a decision later vacated by Matter of A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 307 (A.G.
1
Petitioner also initially sought relief under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT), but the BIA held this claim to be waived and Petitioner does not
challenge that holding before this court.
2
2021) [hereinafter A-B- III]. We reject that argument because substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s nexus determination independent of any change in law caused
by the vacatur of A-B- I. The record reflects that a dispute between Mateo
Tomas’s father and a smuggler (Lopez) resulted in a physical altercation between
the two men’s families in which Mateo Tomas was injured. The BIA concluded
that this fight and subsequent antipathy did not demonstrate that Petitioner was
persecuted because of membership in his father’s family, but rather amounted to
“[a]cts motivated solely by criminal intent, personal vendetta, or personal desires
for revenge,” and thus did not support a claim for relief. This finding was
supported by substantial evidence.
Mateo Tomas also argues that his counsel was not given the proper
opportunity to develop Petitioner’s testimony due to time constraints imposed by
the IJ. “[A]n alien who faces deportation is entitled to a full and fair hearing of his
claims and a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on his behalf,” and we
will “reverse the BIA’s decision on due process grounds if the proceeding was ‘so
fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his
case,’” and the unfairness resulted in prejudice. Colmenar v. INS., 210 F.3d 967,
971 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Platero-Cortez v. INS, 804 F.2d 1127, 1132 (9th
Cir.1986)). Here, Mateo Tomas points to a statement the IJ made to counsel at
page 72 of the hearing transcript. This statement falls far short of demonstrating
3
fundamental unfairness, and Petitioner has made no attempt to demonstrate that the
alleged unfairness resulted in prejudice. For these reasons, the IJ did not violate
Mateo Tomas’s due process rights.
PETITION DENIED.
4