N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ELM ER E. HER NANDEZ-TOVAR , Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-70469 Age n c y No. A208-896-910
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d M ay

8, 2023 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, HUR W ITZ, a nd R . NELSON, C irc u it Judge s. Elm e r He rna

n d e z -Tova

r pe titions for re v ie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ s de c ision a ffirm i ng the im m igration judge ’ s de nia ls of his a pplic ations for a s y lum

an d withholding of re

m ova l. W e have jurisdic tion pursua n t to 8 U.S.C
. 

# F IL ED
MAY11 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).§ 1252(a )(1). The B o a rd c onduc te d its own re v ie w of e vide nc e and la w, so we
re vie w its de c ision. Gue rra v . Barr , 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th C i r. 2020). W e de ny the p e tition. The B oa rd c orre c tly

de c ide d tha

t the thre ats He rnande z -Tova r re c e ive d did not rise to the le ve l of pa st pe rse c ution. 1 Unde r our pre c e d e nt, “ [t] hre ats sta nding
a lone . . . c onstitute

pa st pe rse c ution in only

a sm a ll c ate gory

of c a se s, a

nd only whe n the thre a ts a

re so m e na c ing a s to c a

use signific ant a c tua l suffe ring or ha rm .” Lim v . IN S , 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th C ir. 2000) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

nd
c ita tion omitte d ). Although the im m igrat ion judgefound He rnande z -Tova r’ s
a c c ount of thethre a t s c re dible , he did not c la im to ha ve e xpe rie nc e d a c tua l suffe ring or ha

rm a s a re sult of thethre ats. His c a se , the re fore , doe s not fa l l within the s m a ll c a te gory

suffic ie nt to e sta

blish pa st pe rse c ution. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s fa c t

ua l de te rm ination tha

t He rnande z -Tova

r fa ile d to e sta

blish a ne xus be twe e n his fe ar of future pe rse c ution
and his re ligious be l ie f. Santos-Ponc ev . W ilk i nson , 987 F.3d 886, 890 (9th C ir.

1 W e do not de c ide whe the r the B oa rd’ s de te rm ination is subje c t to de novo or substa ntia l-e vide nc e re vie w, be c a use it pa sse s both sta

nda rds. C f

. Singh v. Garlan d, 57 F.4th 643, 652 (9th C ir. 2022) (“ [W ] e ne e d not a ddre ss whe the r de novo re vie w should a

pply , or disc uss the nua

nc e s of the two sta

nda rds, be c a use the ha rm Singh suffe re d rose to the le ve l of pe rse c ution unde r the m ore de fe re ntia l substa ntia l e vide nc e sta

n da rd of re vie w.” ) (inte rna l quota tions a n d a lte ra tion om i tte d). 22021) (sta

nda rd of re v i e w). The re c ord shows tha t the ga ng thre ate ne d He rnande z Tova r be c a use he re fuse d

to be the i r inform ant. Although He rnande z -Tova

r onc e
c ite d his re ligious be lie f a s a re a son for his not c om

ply ing with the

ga ng’ s orde r, substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the proposition tha

t the ga ng wa s m otiva

te d by his
re fusa l to be the ir inform an t, a n d not be c a

use of the re ligious re a son he gave . The fa ilure to e sta

blish a ny ne xus be twe e n his fe are d pe rse c ution a nd his re ligious be lie f de fe a ts both his a sy lum and withholding c la i m s. Se e Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th C ir. 2017). The sta y of re m ova l re m a ins in pla c e until the m andate issue s. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3