Opinion
17-70899
10-17-2022
NORMA ESTHER ORTIZ SALAS; DAVID CUBILLO RODRIGUEZ; DAVID CUBILLO ORTIZ; JOSHUA CUBILLO ORTIZ, Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 13, 2022 [**]
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A206-675-588, A206-675-583, A206-675-589, A206-675-590
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Norma Ortiz Salas, David Cubillo Rodriguez, and their children, David Cubillo Ortiz and Joshua Cubillo Ortiz (collectively, "petitioners"), citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing their appeal of an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the BIA's decision for substantial evidence. Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2021). "Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion." Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. "To be eligible for asylum, a petitioner has the burden to demonstrate a likelihood of 'persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.'" Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1059 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). "To be eligible for withholding of removal, the petitioner must discharge this burden by a clear probability." Id. (quotation omitted).
Petitioners have not shown past persecution. And the BIA could reasonably conclude that petitioners did not "'adduc[e] credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record of facts that would support a reasonable fear of persecution." Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1094 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Duarte de Guinac v. INS, 179 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999)). Petitioners did not identify any individualized threat against them or establish that either the Knights Templar or the Autodefense is looking for them some years after they left Mexico. Substantial evidence thus supports the BIA's determination that petitioners did not establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1029 ("Absent evidence of past persecution, [petitioners] must establish a well-founded fear of future persecution by showing both a subjective fear of future persecution, as well as an objectively reasonable possibility of persecution upon return to the country in question.") (quotations omitted). And because substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum, petitioners necessarily failed to meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1066.
The record does not support petitioners' contention that the IJ ignored petitioners' testimony.
2. Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. An applicant for CAT protection must demonstrate that "she will more likely than not be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if removed to her native country." Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020).
Petitioners have not experienced past torture in Mexico, and the BIA could conclude that petitioners' fears of future torture are speculative.
PETITION DENIED.
[*] 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).