MIGUEL ROBERTO MARIN ORTEGA, AKA Roberto Marin Ortega v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL ROBERTO MARIN ORTEGA,
AKA Roberto Marin Ortega,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70418
Agency No. A200-551-312
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Roberto Marin Ortega, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
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
AUG 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-70418
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th
Cir. 2006). 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 the
petition for review.
We reject as unsupported by the record Marin Ortega’s contention that the
BIA misstated the harm he experienced in Guatemala.
The record also does not compel the conclusion that Marin Ortega
established a clear probability of future persecution. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at
1018 (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). We reject as
unsupported by the record Marin Ortega’s contention that the BIA ignored his
argument that the IJ erred in her future persecution analysis.
Marin Ortega’s request for a remand, raised in his opening brief, based on
the BIA’s reference to the “reasonable possibility” standard, is denied because the
BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision under Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N.
Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), and the IJ cited the applicable “clear probability” standard.
See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010) (where BIA adopted
and affirmed IJ decision citing Burbano, the court looked through the BIA’s
decision and treated the IJ’s decision as the final agency decision).
Thus, Marin Ortega’s withholding of removal claim fails.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-70418
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Marin Ortega failed to show it is more likely than not he will 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); see also Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d
829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative).
Marin Ortega’s contentions that the BIA misstated the record and the agency
erred by failing to mention evidence fail as unsupported by the record. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due
process claim); see also Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010)
(the agency need not write an exegesis on every contention).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --