Hilario Flores Garcia v. Jefferson Sessions, III ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HILARIO FLORES GARCIA, No. 17-73056
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-337-047
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Hilario Flores Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the three
incidents of harm and the discrimination Flores Garcia suffered in Mexico did not
rise to the level of persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60
(9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner failed to establish past persecution where he was beaten
and robbed on two occasions and accosted by a mob). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s conclusion that Flores Garcia failed to establish it is more
likely than not he would be persecuted if returned to Mexico. See Fakhry v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1066 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence did not compel a finding
that it is more likely than not petitioner would be persecuted upon return)). We
reject Flores Garcia’s contentions that the agency used the wrong standard in
evaluating his withholding of removal claim and that the agency did not consider
all of his evidence. Thus, we deny the petition as to Flores Garcia’s withholding of
removal claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Flores Garcia failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
2 17-73056
with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Aden v. Holder,
589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-73056