NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
JUN 28 2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE CORRALES CORRALES, No. 21-625
Agency No.
Petitioner, A094-301-121
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 6, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: M. SMITH, HAMILTON, *** and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Jose Corrales Corrales, a citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a
decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for withholding of removal and protection
*
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 David F. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for
the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
We review the BIA’s determinations of law de novo. Diaz-Reynoso v.
Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2020). We review its factual findings for
substantial evidence, meaning we will uphold the BIA’s findings “unless the
evidence compels a contrary result.” Id. (quoting Budiono v. Lynch, 837 F.3d
1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2016)).
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Corrales
failed to establish that the harm he experienced in Honduras was on account of a
protected ground. See Vasquez-Rodriguez v. Garland, 7 F.4th 888, 892 (9th Cir.
2021) (“To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must show that ‘it
is more likely than not that’ he would be persecuted because of a protected
ground.” (quoting INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 424 (1984))). Corrales fears
persecution by gangs in Honduras. Before the IJ, he argued that gang members
targeted him because of his membership in two “particular social groups”: (1)
his family, which opposes gangs, and (2) young men recruited by gangs.
As to the first group, Corrales’s own testimony supports the BIA’s
finding that the gangs harassed him because they wanted him to join their ranks,
not because of his membership in his family. Corrales testified that gang
members attacked his uncle after he attempted to defend Corrales, but the
evidence does not indicate, let alone compel a finding, that the gang members
were motivated by the uncle’s membership in Corrales’s family.
2 21-625
As to the second group, Corrales has not argued before this court that he
was attacked because he was a member of a social group of young men
recruited by gangs. Accordingly, that argument is waived. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised
and argued in an opening brief are waived).
2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Corrales’s CAT
claim. Corrales has not offered evidence compelling the conclusion that, if he is
removed, he is likely to be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of
the Honduran government. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2) and 1208.18(a)(1).
Corrales testified that he reported the gang members’ attacks to the police, but
“the police in Honduras do[] not do anything.” But evidence “that the police
were aware of a particular crime, but failed to bring the perpetrators to justice, is
not in itself sufficient to establish acquiescence in the crime.” Garcia-Milian v.
Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014). Nor does evidence that a
government has been “generally ineffective in preventing or investigating
criminal activities raise an inference that public officials are likely to acquiesce
in torture, absent evidence of corruption or other inability or unwillingness to
oppose criminal organizations.” Id. Corrales’s testimony did not establish that
the Honduran government would likely acquiesce to violence against him, so he
is not entitled to CAT relief.
PETITION DENIED.
3 21-625