Leoncio Herrera Ramos v. Loretta E. Lynch , 643 F. App'x 642 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 22 2016
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LEONCIO SAUL HERRERA RAMOS, No. 13-74409
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-717-779
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Leoncio Saul Herrera Ramos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
agency’s factual findings. Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003).
We deny the petition for review.
Ramos claims his family suffered past persecution and that he fears future
persecution on account of both his religion and his family membership.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that he failed to establish past
or future persecution on account of these grounds. See Parussimova v. Mukasey,
555 F.3d 734, 740-42 (9th Cir. 2009) (under the REAL ID Act, applicant must
prove a protected ground is at least “one central reason” for persecution). Ramos
also claims he will be persecuted in the future based on his particular social group
of witnesses of violence. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that
Ramos failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted in
Guatemala based on this proposed group. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018(possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, we deny the petition
for review as to Ramos’ withholding of removal claim.
Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Ramos’ CAT
claim because he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Guatemala. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir.
2 13-74409
2014).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-74409