Fernando Rodriguez Vitela v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERNANDO RODRIGUEZ VITELA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-1734
Agency No.
A098-005-551
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of an
Immigration Judge
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges
Fernando Rodriguez Vitela, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of an immigration judge’s order affirming an asylum officer’s negative
reasonable fear determination. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s reasonable fear determination, and we
* 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
MAR 1 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-1734
review de novo due process challenges to reasonable fear proceedings. Orozco-
Lopez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 764, 774 (9th Cir. 2021). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rodriguez
Vitela failed to show a reasonable possibility that the harm he fears would be on
account of a protected ground. See Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 814 (9th
Cir. 2018) (no basis for withholding of removal where petitioner did not show a
nexus to a protected ground).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
Rodriguez Vitela failed to show a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Andrade-
Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836-37 (9th Cir. 2016) (petitioner failed to
demonstrate government acquiescence sufficient to establish a reasonable
possibility of future torture).
Rodriguez Vitela’s claim the agency violated due process by denying him
the opportunity to gather and submit evidence and additional time to prepare for
his hearing fails because he has not shown error. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder,
770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner
must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-1734
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --