Lopez-Revolorio v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 23, 2023
• Docket: 22-671
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BERONICA DEL CARMEN LOPEZ- No. 22-671 REVOLORIO; et al., Agency Nos. A212-901-228 Petitioners, A212-901-229 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Beronica Del Carmen Lopez-Revolorio and her daughter, natives and

citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision

* 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). denying their application for asylum, and denying Lopez-Revolorio’s applications

for withholding of removal and protection 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. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,

1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.

We do not disturb the agency’s determination that Lopez-Revolorio failed to

establish she suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See

Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant who

alleges past persecution has the burden of proving that the treatment rises to the

level of persecution); see also Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2

(9th Cir. 2022) (court need not resolve whether de novo or substantial evidence

review applies, where result would be the same under either standard). Substantial

evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lopez-Revolorio failed to

establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in Guatemala. See

Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present

“compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of

persecution”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

Because Lopez-Revolorio failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she failed

to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Villegas Sanchez v.

Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1183 (9th Cir. 2021). Thus, Lopez-Revolorio’s

2 22-671 withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Lopez-Revolorio’s

request for CAT protection because she failed to show it is more likely than not she

will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if

returned to Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject Lopez-Revolorio’s contention as to the applicability of a lower standard

of proof for CAT protection.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 22-671