Jeannel Delne v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEANNEL DELNE,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72206
Agency No. A209-760-595
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Jeannel Delne, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
* 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
NOV 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-72206
under 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 deny
the petition for review.
As to asylum, because Delne does not challenge the agency’s dispositive
determination that he firmly resettled in another country, this issue is waived. See
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
As to withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Delne failed to establish he was persecuted on account of a
protected ground. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031-33 (9th Cir.
2014) (record did not compel the conclusion that the petitioner was persecuted on
account of an imputed political opinion). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s determination that Delne failed to show a clear probability of future
persecution. See, e.g., Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)
(feared persecution “too speculative” to support asylum claim). Thus, Delne’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Delne 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 Haiti. See Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-72206
To the extent Delne contends the agency erred or violated due process, we
reject the contentions as unsupported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --