Gregoria Gonzalez Juan v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORIA GONZALEZ JUAN; et al., No. 19-71719
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A206-680-410
A206-680-411
v. A206-680-412
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Gregoria Gonzalez Juan and her two children, natives and citizens of
Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying
their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde
Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA found petitioners waived their challenge to the IJ’s determination
that their asylum application was time barred. Petitioners do not challenge the
BIA’s waiver finding in their counseled opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v.
INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and
argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to
their asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioners failed to
establish they suffered harm rising to the level of persecution. See Duran-
Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (threats alone rarely
constitute persecution); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003)
(persecution is “an extreme concept”). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s determination that petitioners failed to establish an objectively reasonable
fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future
persecution “too speculative”); see also Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 935 (9th
Cir. 2004) (no clear probability of persecution). Thus, petitioners’ withholding of
removal claim fails.
2 19-71719
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Gonzalez Juan failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-71719