Walter J. Aceituno v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER J. ACEITUNO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-268
Agency No.
A073-396-663
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Walter J. Aceituno, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against
* 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 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-268
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction 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.
Because Aceituno failed to contest the BIA’s determination that he waived
challenge to the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal, we do not
address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT deferral of
removal because the record does not compel the conclusion that Aceituno’s past
harm constituted torture, and Aceituno 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 Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1200–01 (9th Cir. 2007) (detention and
multiple beatings did not rise to the level of torture).
The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --