Opinion
No. 18-71989
06-18-2019
OMAR CRUZ-VILLASENOR, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A213-043-938 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Omar Cruz-Villasenor, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Cruz-Villasenor failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in Mexico. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present "compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution"); see also Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th Cir. 2011) (in the absence of past persecution, the burden is on the applicant to show that relocation would be unreasonable). Thus, Cruz-Villasenor's asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Cruz-Villasenor failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Cruz-Villasenor failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.