CIRIACO ALVAREZ V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 14-71947 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 26 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CIRIACO ALVAREZ, AKA Ciriaco Alvarez Martinez, AKA Ciriaco Lavarez Martinez, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-71947 Agency No. A094-325-890 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 19, 2019** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Ciriaco Alvarez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal and asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Alvarez does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). The record does not compel the conclusion that Alvarez established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4); see also Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2008) (waiting 364 days after end of lawful status to apply for asylum was unreasonable and recognizing that “reasonable period” for filing would not ordinarily exceed six months after end of lawful status). Thus, Alvarez’s asylum claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the harm Alvarez suffered in Honduras did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[E]conomic disadvantage alone does not rise to the level of persecution.”); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 2 14-71947 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that employment discrimination “is not the type of economic deprivation that rises to the level of persecution”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Alvarez failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that evidence did not compel a finding of a clear probability of future persecution to qualify for withholding of removal); see also Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 978 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding denial of relief warranted “based on (1) the relative weakness of the claim of disfavored status, (2) the lack of evidence of government approval of the alleged discrimination, and (3) [petitioner’s] minimal showing of individual risk”). Thus, Alvarez’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Alvarez failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Honduran government. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary state action for CAT relief). Finally, we reject Alvarez’s contention that the agency violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring 3 14-71947 error to prevail on a due process claim). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 4 14-71947
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
