Edith Ramirez-Sagastume v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Edith Ramirez-Sagastume v. Eric Holder, Jr.

475 F. App'x 195

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 27, 2012

Docket10-71310

StatusUnpublished

This text of 475 F. App'x 195 (Edith Ramirez-Sagastume v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edith Ramirez-Sagastume v. Eric Holder, Jr., 475 F. App'x 195 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Edith Rossana Ramirez-Sagastume, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision de *196 nying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo its legal conclusions. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 788, 742 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Ramirez-Sagastume testified that an unidentified man approached her on three occasions, told her to stop her political activities, and threatened her with death on at least one of these occasions. Based on these incidents, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that petitioner has not established past persecution. See 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.”) (internal quotations omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Ramirez-Sagastume failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative). Therefore, Ramirez-Sagas-tume’s asylum claims fails.

Because Ramirez-Sagastume failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily fails to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Lastly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Ramirez-Sagastume has not established that she faces a risk of torture if she returns Guatemala. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747-48. Accordingly, Ramirez-Sagastume’s CAT claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Edith Rossana Ramirez-Sagastume, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision de *196 nying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo its legal conclusions. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 788, 742 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Ramirez-Sagastume testified that an unidentified man approached her on three occasions, told her to stop her political activities, and threatened her with death on at least one of these occasions. Based on these incidents, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that petitioner has not established past persecution. See 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.”) (internal quotations omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Ramirez-Sagastume failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative). Therefore, Ramirez-Sagas-tume’s asylum claims fails.

Because Ramirez-Sagastume failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily fails to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Lastly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Ramirez-Sagastume has not established that she faces a risk of torture if she returns Guatemala. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747-48. Accordingly, Ramirez-Sagastume’s CAT claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

475 F. App'x 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edith-ramirez-sagastume-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack