N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B ER NARDO R

AM OS M UNOZ, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 09-73285 Age n c y No. A073-986-657 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 August 13, 2014 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , THOM AS, and HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s . B e rnardo R am os M unoz , a native and c itiz e n

of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism i ssing his a ppe a l from the i m m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic a tion for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, re l ie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ), a nd c anc e lla

tion 

# FIL ED AUG 20 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 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).of re m ova l. Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, a n d re vie w de novo que stions of la w. W ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th C ir. 2009). W e de ny in pa rt and dism i ss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. R am os M unozc la i m s he suffe re d pa st pe rse c u tion be c a use of his ra c e and soc i a l group, a

n d fe ars proble m s in the future for the sa m e re a sons, a s we ll a s his possible union a c tivity
. Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s finding tha t R am o s M unozfa ile d to e sta blish thepa s t ha

rm he e xpe rie nc e d in M e xic o did not rise to the le ve l of pe rse c ution. Se e Gormle y v . Ashc roft , 364 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ [E] c onom ic disa dva nta ge a lone doe s not rise to the le ve l of pe rse c ution.” ). Substa

ntia l e vide nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t R am os M unos fa ile d to e sta

blish a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Se e id .; se e also N agoulk o v . IN S , 333 F.3d 1012 (9th C ir. 2003) (fe ar of future ha rm too spe c ulative ). W e re

je c t R a m os M unoz ’ s c onte ntion tha t the B IA fa ile d

to c onside r c e rta in e vide nc e . S

e e Almaghzar v
. Gonzale

s , 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th C ir. 2006). Abse nt a showing of pa st pe rse c ution, R am os M unozis not e ligiblefor hum anita rian a sy lum
. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii). Thus, his a sy lum c la im fa ils.

0 9
- 7 3 2 8 5 2B e c a

use R a m os M unoz d id not e sta

b lish e ligibility for a sy lum , it follows that he did not sa

t isfy the m o re stringe nt sta

nda rd for withholding of rem ova l. Se e Ze haty e , 453 F.3d a

t 1190. Thus, his c l a im

for withholding of rem ova l fa ils. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s de nia l of re lie f unde r C AT be c a use R am os M unozfa ile d to e sta blish it is m

ore like ly tha n not he would be torture d. Se e Go v
. Holde r , 640 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th C ir. 2011) (pe titione r fa ile d to show suffic i e nt proba

bility of torture to sa

tisfy high C AT sta

nda rd). W e la c k jurisdic tion ove r R am o s M unoz ’ s c l a im tha t the B IA m i sa

pplie d the ha rdship sta nda rd to the fa c ts of his c a se . Se e Me nde z-C astro v . Muk

ase y , 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th C ir. 2009) (c ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to a ddre ss c la im tha t the a ge nc y ’ s de c ision wa s “ fa c t ua lly inc onsiste nt with prior age nc y ha rdship de te rm i nations.” ). W e re je c t R am os M unoz ’ s c onte ntion tha t the a ge nc y

ignore d re le v ant e vide nc e in a sse ssing his c la i m for c a nc e lla tion of re m ova l
. Se e Larita-Martine z v . IN S , 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th C ir. 2000) (“ a n [a pplic ant] a tte m

pting to e sta blish tha t the [a ge nc y ] viola

te d his right to due

proc e ss by fa iling to c onside r re le va nt e vide nc e m

ust ove rc om e the pre sum

ption tha t it did re vie w the e vide nc e .” ). Thus, his c l a im for c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l fa ils. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.
0 9
- 7 3 2 8 5 3