Opinion
18-71570
11-10-2022
MARIO IXIM-POP, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 17, 2022 Portland, Oregon
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A097-526-230
Before: PAEZ and BADE, Circuit Judges, and R. COLLINS, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Mario Ixim-Pop, a native and citizen of Guatemala petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency's "legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence." Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citations omitted). We deny the petition for review.
1. The BIA did not err when it affirmed the IJ's denial of withholding of removal. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Ixim-Pop did not suffer past persecution in Guatemala. Although Ixim-Pop was threatened by his neighbor's employees, we have held that unfulfilled threats alone do not amount to persecution unless "the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual 'suffering or harm.'" Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003). Ixim-Pop was never physically harmed in Guatemala, and this is not an "extreme case[]" where the threats were coupled with other aggravating circumstances. Lim, 224 F.3d at 936; see, e.g., Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1486 (9th Cir. 1997) (finding events constituted past persecution where petitioner suffered an attack on his family, personal confrontation, and death threats).
Additionally, while "a 'substantial economic disadvantage' that interferes with the applicant's livelihood" may qualify as economic persecution, He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted), Ixim-Pop did not make a living off his land.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Ixim-Pop did not face a clear probability of future persecution if he returned to Guatemala. An applicant may qualify for withholding of removal if he makes an independent showing that he faces a "'clear probability' of the threat to life or freedom if deported to his or her country of nationality." Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30 (1984)); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2). Ixim-Pop did not demonstrate that "it is more likely than not" that his neighbor's employees would harm him based on their demands for Ixim-Pop to stop using the private road or, at most, to sell his land to his neighbor. Tamang, 598 F.3d at 1091. Again, there was no indication that the employees attempted to carry out their threat against Ixim-Pop, and Ixim-Pop did not live on and never earned an income from his land.
Moreover, the incidents of violence that Ixim-Pop pointed to as proof that he faces a clear probability of persecution were either unrelated to the employees who threatened him or unrelated to his social group of indigenous landowners. Therefore, the BIA did not err in affirming the IJ's conclusion that Ixim-Pop did not qualify for withholding of removal.
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that the IJ properly denied relief under the CAT. An applicant for CAT protection must show that it "is more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured" if removed to his country of origin. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). "Torture is defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person . . . with the consent or acquiescence of a public official." 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). The record here does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Ixim-Pop will be tortured if he is returned to Guatemala, despite the "extraordinary and very objectionable" treatment of indigenous landowners recognized by the IJ. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that risk of torture must be particular to the applicant).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.