Obed Hernan Alvarenga Martinez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OBED HERNAN ALVARENGA
MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-299
Agency No. A206-685-996
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of an
Immigration Judge
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Submission Withdrawn March 15, 2023
Resubmitted November 3, 2023
Before: BRESS and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN,*** District Judge.
Obed Hernan Alvarenga Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
* 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).
*** The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
FILED
NOV 3 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
petitions for review of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) negative reasonable fear
determination. “We review the IJ’s determination that the [noncitizen] did not
establish a reasonable fear of persecution or torture for substantial evidence.”
Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 2018). We must uphold the IJ’s
determination “unless, based on the evidence, any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Orozco-Lopez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 764,
774 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). We have jurisdiction over the timely
petition for review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Alonso-Juarez v. Garland, 80 F.4th
1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2023). We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Alvarenga
Martinez failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a
protected ground. Gang members sought to extort money from him because of his
perceived wealth, not because of his family membership. See Rodriguez-Zuniga v.
Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1019–22 (9th Cir. 2023); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,
1016 (9th Cir. 2010).
We do not consider Alvarenga Martinez’s contentions regarding the
INTERPOL notice because they were not presented in the proceedings below, and
the government has preserved the exhaustion issue. See Santos-Zacaria v.
Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417–19 (2023) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) is a
non-jurisdictional but mandatory claim-processing rule).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
By failing to argue it in his brief, Alvarenga Martinez waived his challenge
to the IJ’s determination that he did not demonstrate a reasonable fear of torture
should he be returned to El Salvador. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d
1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --