Guillermo Barrera-Hernandez v. Loretta E. Lynch

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUILLERMO WILFREDO BARRERA- No. 14-72826
HERNANDEZ, AKA Guillermo Wilfredo
Barrera, AKA Guillermo Borrero, AKA Agency No. A095-024-884
Guillermo Lariosa Hernandez,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM*
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Guillermo Wilfredo Barrera-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
*
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).
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). 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.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Barrera-Hernandez
established an exception to the asylum filing deadline to excuse his untimely
application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612
F.3d 1088, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to
his asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Barrera-
Hernandez failed to establish past harm rising to the level of persecution. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that persecution
is “an extreme concept”) (quotation and citation omitted); Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d
929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone . . . constitute past persecution in
only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to
cause significant actual suffering or harm.”) (quotation and citation omitted).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Barrera-Hernandez
failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in
2 14-72826
Nicaragua. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution “too
speculative”). We reject his contentions that the agency ignored evidence or erred
in analyzing his claim. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to withholding of
removal.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Barrera-
Hernandez’s CAT claim because he failed to show it is more likely than not that he
would be tortured by the government of Nicaragua, or with its consent or
acquiescence. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). We
reject Barrera-Hernandez’s contentions that the agency’s analysis was insufficient.
See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA adequately
considered the evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-72826