NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ANCELMO HERNANDEZHERNANDEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 14-72344 

14-73595 

Agency No. A201-174-662 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of Orders of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 15, 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 applications 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, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 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. Silaya 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 petitions 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 did not compel 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). Substantial 

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, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future persecution was not objectively 

reasonable); Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner must 

demonstrate a “unique risk of persecution upon return that was distinct from the 
3 14-72344 

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

Hernandez-Hernandez’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 agency 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 any 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).

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.