Opinion
23-457
06-11-2024
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted March 29, 2024 [**]San Francisco, California
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency Nos. A206-911-416 A206-911-417.
Before: PAEZ, WALLACH, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. [***]
MEMORANDUM [*]
Ana Rosa Guzman Silvano ("Guzman Silvano"), and her son, Josue Fernando Coria Guzman ("Coria Guzman"), natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review factual findings for substantial evidence, and questions of law de novo. Benyamin v. Holder, 579 F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition.
1. The agency did not err in determining that Guzman Silvano did not suffer past persecution and failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. Threats can constitute past persecution and may give rise to a well-founded fear of future persecution. Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 634, 638 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Mashiri v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 1112, 1119 (9th Cir. 2004)). But "cases with threats alone, particularly anonymous or vague ones, rarely constitute persecution." Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000)). In this case, the record does not compel a finding that the singular threat Guzman Silvano experienced constituted past persecution or that a reasonable person would have had a well-founded fear of persecution.
2. Because the agency did not err in finding that Guzman Silvano does not meet the standard for asylum, it similarly did not err in determining that she does not meet the standard for withholding of removal. See Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2020) ("An applicant who fails to satisfy the lower standard for asylum necessarily fails to satisfy the more demanding standard for withholding of removal.").
3. As for Guzman Silvano's CAT claim, substantial evidence supports the agency's determination. She failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if she were returned. See Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1217 (9th Cir. 2018) (discussing standard).
4. The agency also did not err in rejecting her sons' claims. While it is concerning that the IJ initially forgot to address Coria Guzman's claims, counsel did not present arguments specific to Coria Guzman at the hearing and offered no evidence in support of Coria Guzman's applications beyond a reference to his mother's statement. It is true that the agency must address independent claims for relief, see Antonio v. Garland, 58 F.4th 1067, 1075 (9th Cir. 2023), and that minors' claims can differ in important respects, see e.g., Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2007).
But the IJ did address Coria Guzman's claims, albeit briefly. And as the agency explained, Coria Guzman failed to meet his burden of establishing eligibility because "his application was based on the same underlying facts as the lead respondent" and "[n]o additional evidence was provided." A reasonable factfinder could have found there was insufficient evidence to support his claims. Any potential error in failing to address the claims thoroughly was thus harmless. See Zamorano v. Garland, 2 F.4th 1213, 1228 (9th Cir. 2021) (discussing harmless error doctrine).
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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
[***] The Honorable Evan J. Wallach, United States Senior Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.