Rosalio Lopez Francisco v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSALIO LOPEZ FRANCISCO, No. 16-73842
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-045-578
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Rosalio Lopez Francisco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
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 deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm
Lopez Francisco experienced did not rise to the level of persecution. See Duran-
Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did not compel
finding that harm rises to the level of persecution where perpetrators took no
violent actions against the petitioner or his family beyond threats). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Lopez Francisco did not
establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d
1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present “compelling, objective
evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”). Thus, Lopez
Francisco’s asylum claim fails.
Because Lopez Francisco failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this
case, he did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453
F.3d at 1190.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Lopez Francisco failed to show it is more likely than not he would 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).
2 16-73842
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-73842