Adin Orlando Recinos Aguilar v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADIN ORLANDO RECINOS AGUILAR,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71542
Agency No. A095-720-273
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an
Immigration Judge’s Decision
Submitted June 2, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, KOH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Adin Orlando Recinos Aguilar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in
Guatemala and thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. 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
JUN 10 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-71542
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative reasonable
fear determination for substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d
829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Recinos Aguilar
failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution in Guatemala on account
of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)
(an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft
or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”);
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (fear of future persecution
speculative).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Recinos
Aguilar failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See
Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836-37 (no reasonable possibility of torture with state
action).
We reject as unsupported by the record Recinos Aguilar’s contentions that
the IJ applied incorrect legal standards or otherwise erred in the analysis of his
claims.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The supplemented motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry Nos. 1

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-71542
and 5) is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --