NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ANCELMO HERNANDEZ

HERNANDEZ, Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 72344 14

- 73595 Agency No. A201

- 174

- 662

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of Order s of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted Ju ly 1 5 , 2019 ** Before: SCHROEDER , SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated petitions, Jose Ancelmo Hernandez

- Hernandez , a native and citizen of Guatemala , petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application s for withholding of removal and relief under the

* 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). 

# FILED

JUL 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 72344

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) , and the BIA’s order denying his motion to reconsider

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Sil aya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA ’s denial of a motion to reconsider. Cano

- Merida v. INS , 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition s for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the past harm Hernandez

- Hernandez suffered in Guatemala did not rise to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS , 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) ( persistent teasing, harassment, and discrimination d id not co mpel the conclusion that petitioner suffered past persecution ) ; see also Wakkary v. Holder , 558 F.3d 1049,
1059

- 60 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner failed to establish past persecution where he was beaten and robbed on two occasions and accosted by a mob). Sub stantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Hernandez

- Hernandez failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution. See Tamang v. Holder , 598 F.3d 1083, 109 4

- 9 5 (9th Cir. 2010) ( fear of future persecution was not objectively

reas onable ); Halim v. Holder , 590 F.3d 971, 97 9 (9th Cir. 2009) ( petitioner must demonstrate a “unique risk of persecution upon return that was distinct from the3 14

- 72344

petitioner’s mere membership in a disfavored group.” (citation omitted) ). Thus, Hernandez

- Hernand ez ’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Hernandez

- Hernandez failed to show it is more likely than not that he would 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). Hernandez

- Hernandez’s contention that the a gency failed to consider all of his evidence is unpersuasive

. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez

- Hernandez ’s motion to reconsider where he failed to identify an y error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must identify errors of fact or law in a prior decision); Ma v. Ashcroft , 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing the standard for a motion to reconsider)

. PETITION S FOR REVIEW DENIED.