Juan Rojas Duran v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN ROJAS DURAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-611
Agency No.
A093-216-564
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2023**
Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Juan Rojas Duran, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial
* 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
JUL 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-611
evidence. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017)
(en banc). Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ and adds its own reasoning,
we review both decisions. Gonzalez Castillo v. Garland, 47 F.4th 971, 976 (9th
Cir. 2022). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
While we retain power to review colorable constitutional claims, we do not
have jurisdiction over a discretionary denial of voluntary departure. See Rojas v.
Holder, 704 F.3d 792, 794 (9th Cir. 2012). Here, Rojas Duran argues that the
immigration judge “did not give sufficient consideration” to his “long length of
residence in the United States, his significant family ties and record of
employment.” Because Rojas Duran challenges the agency’s sua sponte
discretionary weighing of positive and negative factors without raising a question
of law, we lack jurisdiction to review his claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
Even assuming that Rojas Duran subjectively fears future persecution by
the unidentified individuals who kidnapped his son for unknown reasons,
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that he failed to establish a
well-founded fear of future persecution where he did not show that relocation
within Mexico was unreasonable. “[A]n individual who can relocate safely
within his home country ordinarily cannot qualify for asylum.” I.N.S. v. Orlando
Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 18 (2002). We deny his petition with respect to his claim
for asylum.
Qualifying for withholding of removal is “a more stringent standard” than
asylum. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019). Because

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-611
Rojas Duran has not established asylum eligibility, he fails to meet the higher
burden of proof for withholding of removal. See Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d
520, 525 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Rojas Duran’s CAT
claim. A petitioner seeking CAT protection must show that it is “more likely than
not he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.”
8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). Rojas Duran does not claim that he was harmed or
tortured in Mexico before, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion
to the BIA’s finding that he has not established it is more likely than not that he
will be subjected to torture by or with the acquiescence of a public official. There
is no evidence or claim that the unknown individuals who kidnapped his son are
interested in him or even aware of his existence.
PETITION DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --