Guerrero Elizondo v. Garland

facts, we do not recount them here except as necessary for context. “Where, as

here, the BIA affirms the decision of the IJ without opinion, we review the IJ’s

decision as the final agency decision.” Donchev v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1206, 1212

(9th Cir. 2009). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and (a)(2)(D),

and we deny the petition.

1. Even assuming Guerrero Elizondo could overcome the IJ’s adverse

credibility finding, the untimeliness of his asylum application, and the lack of

nexus determination, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail because

the IJ determined that he could reasonably relocate to another part of Mexico, and

Guerrero Elizondo has not challenged that determination. See Akosung v. Barr,

970 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that asylum and withholding of

removal are unavailable if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating

within the country and it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so).

Even if he had challenged that determination, it is supported by substantial

evidence.

2. Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that Guerrero Elizondo

did not establish for purposes of his CAT…