SYLVESTRE OSCAR, AKA Sylvestre Blanchard v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SYLVESTRE OSCAR, AKA Sylvestre
Blanchard,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72142
Agency No. A209-389-228
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Sylvestre Oscar, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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).
FILED
SEP 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 20-72142
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,
1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm
Oscar experienced did not rise to the level of persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v.
Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did not compel finding that
harm rises to the level of persecution where perpetrators took no violent actions
against the petitioner or his family beyond threats).
The BIA did not err in its determination that Oscar waived any challenge to
the IJ’s conclusion that his proposed particular social group of “Haitians who
refuse to join the gangs, or be a gang member in Haiti” is not cognizable. See
Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1061, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2019) (no error in BIA’s waiver
determination).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Oscar did not
otherwise establish that the harm he fears would be on account of a protected
ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s
“desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random
violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”).

-- 2 of 4 --

3 20-72142
We lack jurisdiction to consider Oscar’s contentions regarding pattern or
practice of persecution because he did not raise them before the BIA. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to
review claims not presented to the agency).
To the extent Oscar contends that the BIA violated his right to due process
and erred by not addressing firm resettlement, his contention fails. See Simeonov
v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required
to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). We do not address Oscar’s
contentions as to the IJ’s firm resettlement determination because the BIA did not
deny relief on that ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829
(9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the
grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Thus, Oscar’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Oscar failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Haiti. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

-- 3 of 4 --

4 20-72142
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 4 of 4 --