Rosa Torres Rosales v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 1 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSA ISELA TORRES ROSALES; et al., Nos. 18-71459
19-70542
Petitioners,
Agency Nos. A206-373-952
v. A206-373-953
A206-373-954
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney A206-373-955
General, A206-373-956
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Rosa Isela Torres Rosales and four family members, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”) (petition No. 18-71459), and the BIA’s order denying
their motion to reconsider and terminate removal proceedings (petition No. 19-
70542). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny
the petitions for review.
As to petition No. 18-71459, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that petitioners’ past harm did not rise to the level of persecution.
See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (threats alone
rarely constitute persecution); Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000)
(record did not compel the conclusion that death threats rose to the level of
persecution, where petitioner and his family were not physically harmed or
confronted). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
petitioners failed to establish their fear of future persecution was objectively
reasonable. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility
of future persecution too speculative). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case,
they failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453
F.3d at 1190.
2 18-71459
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief as to all
petitioners apart from the minor petitioner (A206-373-953), because they failed to
show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by or with the consent or
acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589
F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as unsupported by the record petitioners’ contentions that the
agency applied an incorrect legal standard, failed to consider evidence, or
otherwise erred in its analysis of their claims.
As to petition No. 18-71459 and 19-70542, petitioners’ contentions as to
jurisdiction over their removal proceedings under Pereira v. Sessions, ––– U.S. ––
––, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), fail under Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158,
1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (notice to appear need not include time and date of hearing
to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court).
In light of this disposition, as to petition No. 19-70542, the BIA did not
abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider and terminate. See
Karingithi, 913 F.3d at 1160-62.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-71459