Amanda Cifuentes-Chavez De Lop v. William Barr

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 13, 2019
• Docket: 17-70234
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 13 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AMANDA CIFUENTES-CHAVEZ DE No. 17-70234 LOPEZ; et al., Agency Nos. A206-842-342 Petitioners, A206-842-343 A206-842-344 v. A206-842-345

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 7, 2019** Portland, Oregon

Before: MURGUIA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and GAITAN,*** District Judge.

An immigration judge (“IJ”) denied the applications of Amanda Cifuentes-

Chavez De Lopez and her minor daughters for asylum, withholding of removal, and

* 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). *** The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation. relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed their appeal. We have jurisdiction of this petition for

review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum. The record does not

compel a finding that any previous threats, individually or collectively, rose to the

level of persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.

2019). Substantial evidence also supports the determination that the petitioners did

not show a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground.

See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(i).

2. Because the petitioners failed to show the well-founded fear of persecution

required for asylum, they cannot show the clear probability of persecution necessary

to obtain withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th

Cir. 2003).

3. Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. The evidence does

not compel a conclusion that the petitioners are likely to be tortured “with the

consent or acquiescence” of the Guatemalan government if returned to that country.

Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033–35 (9th Cir. 2014).

PETITION DENIED.