DocketNumber: 10-73345
Citation Numbers: 511 F. App'x 672
Judges: Fletcher, Pregerson, Reinhardt
Filed Date: 3/19/2013
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/6/2023
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 19 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LINO PENA-CHAVEZ, No. 10-73345 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-663-004 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 12, 2013 ** Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Jose Lino Pena-Chavez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under8 U.S.C. § 1252
. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Lopez-Cardona v. Holder,662 F.3d 1110
, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Pena-Chavez failed to demonstrate his experiences in Nicaragua rose to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS,224 F.3d 929
, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (death threats did not compel finding of past persecution). Absent a showing of past persecution, Pena-Chavez does not have a rebuttable presumption of future persecution. See8 C.F.R. § 208.13
(b)(1). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Pena- Chavez failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS,333 F.3d 1012
, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative). Consequently, his asylum claim fails. Because Pena-Chavez did not establish his eligibility for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Rostomian v. INS,210 F.3d 1088
, 1089 (9th Cir. 2000). Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection because Pena-Chavez failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be 2 10-73345 tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Nicaraguan government. See Silaya v. Mukasey,524 F.3d 1066
, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 10-73345
Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066 ( 2008 )
Valentina A. Nagoulko v. Immigration and Naturalization ... , 333 F.3d 1012 ( 2003 )
Lopez-Cardona v. Holder , 662 F.3d 1110 ( 2011 )
Grachik Rostomian Anik Rostomian,petitioners v. Immigration ... , 210 F.3d 1088 ( 2000 )
Melencio Legui Lim v. Immigration and Naturalization Service , 224 F.3d 929 ( 2000 )