Amanda Cifuentes-Chavez De Lop v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMANDA CIFUENTES-CHAVEZ DE No. 17-70234
LOPEZ; et al.,
Agency Nos. A206-842-342
Petitioners, A206-842-343
A206-842-344
v. A206-842-345
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 7, 2019**
Portland, Oregon
Before: MURGUIA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and GAITAN,*** District
Judge.
An immigration judge (“IJ”) denied the applications of Amanda Cifuentes-
Chavez De Lopez and her minor daughters for asylum, withholding of removal, and
*
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 Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge
for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed their appeal. We have jurisdiction of this petition for
review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum. The record does not
compel a finding that any previous threats, individually or collectively, rose to the
level of persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.
2019). Substantial evidence also supports the determination that the petitioners did
not show a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground.
See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(i).
2. Because the petitioners failed to show the well-founded fear of persecution
required for asylum, they cannot show the clear probability of persecution necessary
to obtain withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th
Cir. 2003).
3. Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. The evidence does
not compel a conclusion that the petitioners are likely to be tortured “with the
consent or acquiescence” of the Guatemalan government if returned to that country.
Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033–35 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION DENIED.
2