Opinion
No. 17-70234
06-13-2019
AMANDA CIFUENTES-CHAVEZ DE LOPEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency Nos. A206-842-342 A206-842-343 A206-842-344 A206-842-345 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 7, 2019 Portland, Oregon Before: MURGUIA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and GAITAN, District Judge.
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 Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation. --------
An immigration judge ("IJ") denied the applications of Amanda Cifuentes-Chavez De Lopez and her minor daughters for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"), and the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissed their appeal. We have jurisdiction of this petition for review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum. The record does not compel a finding that any previous threats, individually or collectively, rose to the level of persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). Substantial evidence also supports the determination that the petitioners did not show a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(i).
2. Because the petitioners failed to show the well-founded fear of persecution required for asylum, they cannot show the clear probability of persecution necessary to obtain withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
3. Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. The evidence does not compel a conclusion that the petitioners are likely to be tortured "with the consent or acquiescence" of the Guatemalan government if returned to that country. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION DENIED.