Stevensonn Sylveste v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVENSONN SYLVESTE,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1479
Agency No.
A209-868-025
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.
Stevensonn Sylveste, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-1232
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Sylveste
failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.
See Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that a
personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute persecution on account of a
protected ground). Thus, Sylveste’s asylum claim fails. Because Sylveste failed to
establish any nexus at all, he also failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of
removal. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Sylveste 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 Haiti. See Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --