NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DERIK YULIAN COLON

- ALVAREZ, AKA Derik Julian Colon

- Alvarez,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 73219 Agency No. A208

- 578

- 974

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 19, 2020 * * Phoenix, Arizona Before: TALLMAN, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Derik Colon

- Alvarez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ ( “ BIA ” ) order dismissing his appeal from an i mmigration j udge’s denial of his applications for asylum , withholding of removal , and prot ection under the Convention Against Torture ( “ CAT ” )

. We review the agency’s “legal conclusions

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Ci rcuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 23 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.” Bringas

- Rodri g uez v. Sessions , 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citations omitted). Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the petition for review.
1. The agency considered the cumulative effect of the mistreatment Colon

- Alvarez experienced. See Chand v. I.N.S. , 222 F.3d 1066, 1074 (9th Cir. 2000) (“An applicant m a y suffer persecution because of the cumulative effect of several incidents, no one of which rises to the level of persecution.”). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Colon

- Alvarez failed to establish that his past exp erience s in Honduras rose to the level of persecution. See Baghdasaryan v. Holder , 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) ( stating that an applicant who alleges past persecution bears the burden of proving that the treatment rises to the level of persecution )

. 2. The agency identified and applied the correct standard for establishing future persecution. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Colon

- Alvarez did not establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecutio n
. See Nagoulko v. I.N.S. , 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) ( stating
that the possibility of a course of events without “specific evidence to suggest” that the events will occur is too speculative to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecuti on ) ; Sinha v. Holder , 564 F.3d 1015, 1022 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] petitioner’s fear of future prosecution is weakened, even undercut, when similarly

-3

situated family members living in the petitioner’s home country are not harmed .” (internal quotation marks an d citation omitted) )

. Thus, Colon

- Alvarez ’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail

. 3

. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Colon

- Alvarez failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be
torture d by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Honduras. See Delgado

- Ortiz v. Holder , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (generalized evidence of violence and crime in petitioner’s home country

was insufficient to meet standard for CAT relief). None of Colon

- Alvarez ’s other arguments have merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.