Satiel Humberto Morales- Rivas; Alex Josue Morales Labato v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SATIEL HUMBERTO MORALES-
RIVAS; ALEX JOSUE MORALES
LABATO,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1456
Agency Nos.
A209-233-279
A209-233-280
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 7, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: S.R. THOMAS, BRESS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.
Satiel Humberto Morales-Rivas and his minor son, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals
* 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
DEC 12 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
(“BIA”) dismissing their appeal of the denial by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
(collectively, “the Agency”) of their applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition.
“Where, as here, the BIA cites [Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872
(B.I.A. 1994)] and also provides its own review of the evidence and law, we
review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.” Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028
(9th Cir. 2011). We review legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for
substantial evidence. Id. at 1028-29.
Substantial evidence supports the Agency’s determination that Morales-
Rivas did not establish his eligibility for asylum. First, Morales-Rivas did not
demonstrate a “well-founded fear” of being individually targeted for persecution
on account of his membership in the particular social groups of individuals (or El
Salvadorans) who have witnessed and disclosed (or reported) gang activity to the
general population because he failed to produce evidence demonstrating that his
fear of future harm is “objectively reasonable.” See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009); see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(i). Instead, his fear of
1 Morales-Rivas does not make any arguments or cite any authorities in his
opening brief with respect to the Agency’s denial of his application for protection
under the CAT. He has, therefore, forfeited his CAT claim and we will not review
it. See Escobar Santos v. Garland, 4 F.4th 762, 764 n.1 (9th Cir. 2021).

-- 2 of 4 --

3
persecution is speculative and lacks evidentiary support in the record. See Sharma
v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2021).
Second, Morales-Rivas did not demonstrate that there is a “pattern or
practice” of persecution against similarly situated persons on account of their
membership in his particular social groups. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060; see
also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). The record supports the Agency’s finding that
there is not a “systematic” pattern or practice of persecution against journalists or
interviewees. Cf. Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1061 (collecting cases where a pattern or
practice of persecution was found). Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the
IJ’s determination that Morales-Rivas is not similarly situated to witnesses who
testify or cooperate against gangs in criminal proceedings. Cf. Henriquez-Rivas v.
Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1092 (9th Cir. 2013) (discussing the “unique vulnerability
of people who testify against gang members”).
Because substantial evidence supports the Agency’s conclusion that
Morales-Rivas did not demonstrate a “well-founded fear” for the purpose of
asylum, he “necessarily has failed to meet the more stringent ‘clear probability’
burden required for withholding of deportation.” Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d
1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149 (9th

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Cir. 1999)). The pending motion for stay of removal is denied as moot.2
PETITION DENIED.
2 The temporary stay shall remain in effect until issuance of the mandate. See
General Order 6.4(c).

-- 4 of 4 --