Jorge Manaces Ortecho- Alvarez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE MANACES ORTECHO-
ALVAREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1422
Agency No.
A208-967-405
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 11, 2023**
Seattle, Washington
Before: GRABER, GOULD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Jorge Manaces Ortecho-Alvarez (“Ortecho-Alvarez”), a citizen
of Peru, timely petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision
(“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of the denial of his withholding of removal
* 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
JUL 13 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1422
application. We deny Ortecho-Alvarez’s petition.1
1. We review for substantial evidence the factual findings underlying the
BIA’s denial of withholding of removal. Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23
F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022). Under this standard, we “must uphold the
agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.”
Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019).
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Ortecho-
Alvarez did not show a clear probability of persecution if he were to be returned
to Peru. Although Ortecho-Alvarez identifies a few violent incidents that have
occurred to former members of the military, he has not pointed to sufficient
evidence in the record to compel the conclusion that a “systematic pattern or
practice of persecution” currently exists against his particular social group of
elite combat veterans of the Peruvian Army who have fought against the
Shining Path, as required by the applicable regulations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558
F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (cleaned up). A single attempt against a sub-
officer in Peru, allegedly conducted by the Shining Path, is not enough to
establish a pattern or practice of persecution. Ortecho-Alvarez has also not
identified sufficient evidence to compel us to reach a different conclusion than
that reached by the BIA. Given the lack of direct evidence that the Shining Path
is looking for him, it is unlikely that the Shining Path would identify him after
1 The motion to stay removal (Dkt #3) is denied as moot. The temporary stay of
removal will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1422
almost thirty years.
3. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that the
Peruvian government has not shown an inability or unwillingness to control the
Shining Path. We have previously held that a government that “demonstrates
efforts to subdue [violent nonstate actors]” can be sufficient to show
governmental willingness and ability. Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 648 (9th
Cir. 2021). The evidence proffered by Ortecho-Alvarez himself shows that,
although the resurgence of the Shining Path is undoubtedly concerning, the
Peruvian government is aware of the group’s rise and is taking steps to combat
it. We see no substantial evidence of a likelihood that, upon return to Peru,
Ortecho-Alvarez will be subjected to persecution or injury from the Shining
Path.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --