Walter Evans Soriano-Guzman v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER EVANS SORIANO-GUZMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1660
Agency No.
A216-403-214
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2024**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON, MELLOY, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.***
Walter Evans Soriano-Guzman (Soriano-Guzman), a native and citizen of El
Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ)
* 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).
*** The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, United States Senior Circuit Judge
for the Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
JAN 12 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1660
denying withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT) following reasonable fear review proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.1
We review the IJ’s decision for substantial evidence. See Andrade-Garcia v.
Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 2016), as amended. “Under the substantial
evidence standard, we uphold the agency’s determinations unless, based on the
evidence, any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.” Hermosillo v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Soriano-Guzman
failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture. The gang
members who beat and extorted Soriano-Guzman were motivated by financial
gain. See Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1025 (9th Cir. 2023)
(explaining that “exclusive financial motivation cannot establish a nexus” to a
protected ground). And although Soriano-Guzman stated that police targeted him
for being a suspected gang member, this testimony failed to establish torture or a
likelihood of torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2) (“Torture is an extreme form of
cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman
1 The Government has withdrawn its argument that we lack jurisdiction.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1660
or degrading treatment or punishment that do not amount to torture.”).2
PETITION DENIED.
2 The temporary stay of removal shall remain in place until the mandate
issues. Soriano-Guzman’s Motion for Stay of Removal is otherwise denied.

-- 3 of 3 --