Ricardo Lopez-Aguilar v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO LOPEZ-AGUILAR, AKA No. 14-71261
Calixto Benito Mendoza Cruz,
Agency No. A205-141-194
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Lopez-Aguilar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims and we
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Vilchez v. Holder,
682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 2012). We deny the petition for review.
We reject Lopez-Aguilar’s contention that the agency violated his right to
due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error
to prevail on due process challenge).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lopez-Aguilar
failed to establish that the harm he and his family suffered by gangs in Guatemala,
even considered cumulatively, rose to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that harassment, threats,
and one beating did not compel a finding of past persecution); see also Hernandez-
Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2007) (injuries to a family must
be considered in asylum cases where the events alleged as the basis for past
persecution were perceived when the petitioner was a child). Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s conclusion that Lopez-Aguilar failed to establish that it
is more likely than not he will be persecuted if returned to Guatemala. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future
persecution “too speculative”).
In this case, because Lopez-Aguilar failed to establish eligibility for asylum,
his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales,
2 14-71261
453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Lopez-
Aguilar’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he
will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.
2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-71261