JUAN ORDONEZ, AKA Antonio Francisco Gonzalez-Ordonez, AKA Alvarao De Los Angeles… v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN ORDONEZ, AKA Antonio Francisco
Gonzalez-Ordonez, AKA Alvarao De Los
Angeles Hernandez,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70447
Agency No. A205-716-787
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Juan Ordonez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal
* 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
APR 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-70447
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947
F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
Because Ordonez does not challenge the agency’s determinations that he
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal based on proposed
particular social groups related to land ownership and family, we do not address
them. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
As to Ordonez’s claim based on his indigenous identity, we do not disturb
the agency’s determination that Ordonez failed to establish he suffered harm that
rises to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th
Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an extreme concept that does not include every sort of
treatment our society regards as offensive” (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)); see also Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2 (9th Cir. 2022)
(court need not resolve whether de novo or substantial evidence review applies,
where result would be the same under either standard). Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s determination that Ordonez failed to establish a clear
probability of future persecution in Guatemala on this ground. See, e.g., Nagoulko,
333 F.3d at 1018 (feared persecution “too speculative” to support asylum claim).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-70447
We do not address Ordonez’s contentions as to the government being unable
or unwilling to protect him because the agency did not deny relief on this ground.
See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In
reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by
that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Thus, Ordonez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Ordonez 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 Guatemala.
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of
torture).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --