Ok NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

JUAN MANUEL CISNEROS

- VITE,

Petitioner,

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 14

- 71803 Agency No. A200

- 681

- 535

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 10, 2018 **

Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN , Circuit Judges.

Juan Manuel Cisneros

- Vite, a native and citizen of Mexico , petition s for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his appli cation for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* 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 17 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 71803

We have jurisdic tion 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 de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder , 754 F. 3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). W e deny the petition for review.

S ubstantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cisneros

- Vite failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution

. See Halim

v. Holder , 590 F.3d 971, 977 (9 th Cir. 2009) (petitioner “failed to make a compelling showing of the requisite objective component of a well

- founded fear of persecution”). In light of our conclusion, we do not reach Cisneros

- Vite’s social

group or nexus contentions. We reject as unsupported by the record Cisneros

Vite’s contention that the agency improperly construed Cisneros

- Vite’s fear as only a generalized fear. Thus, p etitioners’ asylum claim fails.
In this case, because he failed to establ ish elig ibility for asylum, Cisneros

Vite failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.

Gonzales , 453 F .3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

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

Cisneros

- Vite failed to show i t is more likely than not that he will be tortured with3 14

- 71803

the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico

. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009). We reject as without merit Cisneros

- Vite’s contention that the BIA failed to

a dequately consider evidence and explain its decision. See Najmabadi v. Holder ,
5 97 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“What is required is merely that [the BIA]
consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a

reviewin g court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” ( citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Finally, w e reject Cisneros

- Vite’s contention that the agency violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 12 46 (9th Cir. 2000) (error and

substantial prejudice required to prevail on due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.