Bernardo Ramos Munoz v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 20 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BERNARDO RAMOS MUNOZ, No. 09-73285
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-986-657
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 13, 2014**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Bernardo Ramos Munoz, 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 asylum, withholding
of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation
*
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).
of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and review de novo questions of
law. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Ramos Munoz claims he suffered past persecution because of his race and
social group, and fears problems in the future for the same reasons, as well as his
possible union activity. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that
Ramos Munoz failed to establish the past harm he experienced in Mexico did not
rise to the level of persecution. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th
Cir. 2004) (“[E]conomic disadvantage alone does not rise to the level of
persecution.”). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Ramos
Munos failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See id.; see
also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2003) (fear of future harm too
speculative). We reject Ramos Munoz’s contention that the BIA failed to consider
certain evidence. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006).
Absent a showing of past persecution, Ramos Munoz is not eligible for
humanitarian asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii). Thus, his asylum claim
fails.
2 09-73285
Because Ramos Munoz did not establish eligibility for asylum, it follows
that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. Thus, his claim for withholding of removal fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of relief under CAT
because Ramos Munoz failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be
tortured. See Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2011) (petitioner failed
to show sufficient probability of torture to satisfy high CAT standard).
We lack jurisdiction over Ramos Munoz’s claim that the BIA misapplied the
hardship standard to the facts of his case. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552
F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (court lacks jurisdiction to address claim that the
agency’s decision was “factually inconsistent with prior agency hardship
determinations.”).
We reject Ramos Munoz’s contention that the agency ignored relevant
evidence in assessing his claim for cancellation of removal. See Larita-Martinez v.
INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (“an [applicant] attempting to
establish that the [agency] violated his right to due process by failing to consider
relevant evidence must overcome the presumption that it did review the
evidence.”). Thus, his claim for cancellation of removal fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 09-73285