Jose Noe Parada Arbaiza v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE NOE PARADA ARBAIZA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1367
Agency No.
A208-578-095
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2023**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: GOULD, HURWITZ, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Jose Noe Parada Arbaiza, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing an appeal
* 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
SEP 14 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1367
from an order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his application for
withholding of removal.1 We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review the denial of withholding of removal for substantial evidence.
Sanjaa v. Sessions, 863 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2017). Under this “highly
deferential” standard, we will only reverse a decision when “the evidence
compels the conclusion that” the BIA erred. Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052,
1060 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal quotations and citation omitted). We deny the
petition.
To be eligible for withholding of removal, an applicant must prove his “life
or freedom would be threatened in th[e] country [of removal] because of [his]
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). An applicant must demonstrate “a ‘clear
probability’ of persecution because of a protected ground” to obtain relief.
Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1146 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting INS v. Stevic,
467 U.S. 407, 429–30 (1984)).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Parada Arbaiza
failed to meet this burden for withholding. Although Parada Arbaiza presented
evidence showing his sister—a property owner—has been extorted since 2002,
only one other similarly situated family member suffered harm at the hands of a
1 Parada Arbaiza also applied for relief under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). The BIA affirmed the denial of CAT relief, but Parada Arbaiza
only challenges the denial of withholding of removal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1367
gang. In that incident, in 1996, gang members attacked Parada Arbaiza’s brother-
in-law on his way home from work and demanded “something” from him. The
BIA found this incident “too remote” in time to be related to his sister’s extortion.
The BIA noted that Parada Arbaiza’s sister’s other immediate relatives have lived
in El Salvador since 1996 without being harmed or threatened by the gangs. The
lack of harm to other similarly situated family members supports the lack of clear
probability of future persecution for Parada Arbaiza. See, e.g., Sharma, 9 F.4th
at 1066. Nothing in the record compels the finding that Parada Arbaiza will be
targeted by his sister’s extortionists in the future.
The petition is DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --