Case ID: f-appx_642/html/0771-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Reyes Abigail LINARES-GONZALEZ, aka Reyes Abigail Linares, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71142.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 20, 2015.
    Filed March 21, 2016.
    Reyes Abigail Linares-Gonzalez, Win-terville, GA, pro se.
    Rosana Cheung, Law Office of Rosana Kit Wai Cheung, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Annette Marie Wietecha, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges and BASTIAN, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Stanley Allen Bastían, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Reyes Abigail Linares-Gon-zales (“Linares”) challenges the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.

Linares does not claim that he has suffered any past persecution, and poverty and general conditions of violence are insufficient to support a claim of asylum or withholding of removal. See, e.g., Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1179-80 (9th Cir.2007); Li v. INS, 92 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir.1996). Similarly, general conditions of violence and poverty are insufficient to show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if he returned to Guatemala. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1). Accordingly, Linares has not' met his burden of showing his entitlement to asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under CAT.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Linares’ petition for relief in connection with his request for cancellation of removal is addressed in a separate opinion issued concurrently with this memorandum disposition.