Cesar Augusto Caixon Raxtun v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR AUGUSTO CAIXON RAXTUN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71226
Agency No. A205-322-026
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Augusto Caixon Raxtun, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to terminate and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
* 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
OCT 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-71226
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to
terminate. Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Caixon Raxtun’s motion to
terminate where his contention that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over
his proceedings is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th
Cir. 2020) (“the lack of time, date, and place in the NTA sent to [petitioner] did not
deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction over her case”).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Caixon
Raxtun failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears in Guatemala was
or would be on account of a protected ground, including political opinion or
membership in a particular social group. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or
circumstantial”); Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005) (to
establish a nexus to a political opinion ground, petitioner must show “(1) that [he]
had either an affirmative or imputed political opinion, and (2) that [he was]
targeted on account of that opinion.”); see also 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-71226
to a protected ground”). Thus, Caixon Raxtun’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Caixon Raxtun 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 Guatemala. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --