NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO CHICAS-NAVARRETE, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 21-70827 

Agency No. A215-859-383 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 9, 2023**

Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN, R. NELSON, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Pedro Chicas-Navarrete, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for 

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an 

immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have 

* 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

JAN 17 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision under Matter of 

Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994), “we review the IJ’s order as if it 

were the BIA’s.” Kwong v. Holder, 671 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2011). We review

“denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for ‘substantial 

evidence.’” Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 

Kamalyan v. Holder, 620 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir. 2010)). “In order to reverse the 

BIA, we must determine ‘that the evidence not only supports [a contrary] 

conclusion, but compels it—and also compels the further conclusion’ that the 

petitioner meets the requisite standard for obtaining relief.” Id. (alteration in 

original) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992)).

1. The IJ found that Chicas-Navarrete was “statutorily barred from asylum”

because his asylum application arrived well after the one-year deadline and neither 

extraordinary circumstances nor changed circumstances justified the late filing. See 

8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D). In this court, Chicas-Navarrete argues that he 

established a change of circumstances in El Salvador with country condition reports 

showing that violence, trafficking, and corruption have “worsened” since his 

departure in 2009.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Chicas-Navarrete failed to 

show “changed circumstances that materially affect his eligibility for asylum.” The 
3

cited country reports only suggest that drugs and corruption “remain[]” significant 

problems for El Salvador, not that the situation has grown “exponentially worse” as 

Chicas-Navarrete contends. Moreover, as the IJ noted, Chicas-Navarrete was 

concerned about these problems even “prior to his departure from El Salvador.” At 

most, Chicas-Navarrete’s cited evidence appears to be “[n]ew evidence confirming 

what [he] already knew,” which “does not constitute changed circumstances.” See 

Budiono v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2016). 

2. The IJ also found, in the alternative, that the asylum claim failed because 

Chicas-Navarrete did not “meet his burden to demonstrate past persecution or a wellfounded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground.” See Sarkar v. 

Garland, 39 F.4th 611, 622 (9th Cir. 2022).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Chicas-Navarrete had 

not experienced past persecution on account of a protected ground. As the IJ noted, 

Chicas-Navarrete “was threatened by gang members on two occasions in El 

Salvador” but he “was never physically harmed.” “[T]hreats alone compel a finding 

of past persecution” in only an “‘extreme’ case.” Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 

F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 

1028 (9th Cir. 2019)). Though unfortunate, the small number of unfulfilled threats 

is not “so overwhelming so as to necessarily constitute persecution.” See Prasad v. 

INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1995). Moreover, Chicas-Navarrete points to no 
4

compelling evidence that these threats were made “on account of” his nationality or 

any other protected ground, as is required to establish “eligibility for asylum.” See 

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion about the lack of a wellfounded fear of future persecution. Chicas-Navarrete’s fear of future persecution is 

based on the threats made against him in the past. An asylum applicant who has 

established “past persecution shall also be presumed to have a well-founded fear of 

persecution.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). But since those incidents do not qualify as 

past persecution, they do not establish an “objectively reasonable” fear of “future 

persecution.” See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094–95 (9th Cir. 2010)

(holding that experiences of vague threats were insufficient to render a petitioner’s 

fear of future persecution objectively reasonable).

Nor does Chicas-Navarrete provide evidence or argument that compels us to 

conclude—contrary to the IJ’s findings—that he could not safely relocate within El 

Salvador or that the Salvadoran government is unwilling or unable to protect him. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i) (in the absence of past persecution, applicant must

show relocation would be unreasonable); Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 

633 (9th Cir. 2022) (asylum applicant must show persecution committed by

government or by forces that government was unable or unwilling to control). 

3. The IJ further concluded that Chicas-Navarrete was ineligible for 
5

withholding of removal. Because Chicas-Navarrete did not meet the lower burden 

of proof for asylum, it follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding 

of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). 

4. Finally, the IJ denied Chicas-Navarrete CAT protection. Though the 

petition briefly states that the IJ erred in doing so, it offers no supporting argument 

or authority and thus waives that claim. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 

1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). And even absent waiver, we discern no evidence in the 

record compelling the conclusion that Chicas-Navarrete, in particular, is more likely 

than not to be tortured in El Salvador. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 

1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). 

5. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate. The motions for stay of removal (Dkt. Nos. 1, 5) are otherwise denied as 

moot.

PETITION DENIED.