NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION F ile Nam e: 12a0027n.06 No. 10-3915 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT

J AVI ER ADOL FO CI FUE NTES, J OHNNY X. MACARI O, SARA K. MACARI O, Petitioners,

v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Attorney Gene ral, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON FOR REVI EW FROM THE U N I T E D S T A T E S B O A R D O F I MMI GRATI ON APPEAL S

Be fore : SUHRHEI

NRI CH, SUTTON, and COOK , Circuit J udg es.
COOK, Circuit J udg e. I n Aug ust 2006, the g overnme nt initiated re m o v al p roce eding s ag ainst Petitioner J av i er Cifuentes and his children, J ohnny and Sara Maca rio. Cifuentes and his children applied for asy lum and withholding of remova l. An immigra tion judge (“I J ”) denied these applications beca

use Cifuentes failed to establish either pa st persec ution or a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution. The I J likewise denied Cifuentes’s application for “spec ial rule” canc ellation of

remova l under section 203 of t h e Ni carag uan and Central Americ an Relief Act of 1997 (“N ACARA”). The Boa

rd of I mmigra tion Appeals (“ BI A”) then dismissed his appeal. 1

The I J g rante d Cifuentes’s application for canc ellation of remova l under § 240A(b) of the 1 I mmigra tion and Nationality Act (“I NA”)

. The I J likewise g rante d the canc ellation application filed by Cifuentes’s wife, Bla

nca Z ara te, who is not a party to this appea l. The canc ellations do not extend to their children, deriva tive petitioners J o h n ny and Sara Maca rio. Neither Cifuentes nor the g overnme nt appea led this portion of the I J ’s dec ision.No. 10-3915

Cifuentes v. Holder

We revie w q u es tions of law de novo. See Stserba v. Holder , 646 F.3d 964, 971 (6th Cir. 2011). Conversely , we revie w fac tual finding s for substantial evi d en ce an d reve rse only if “any

rea sonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contra ry .” Khalil i v. Holder , 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 4)(B )) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Substantial evidenc e supports the I J ’s conclusion that Cifuentes is ineligible for asy lum, see 8 U.S.C

. § 1 1 5 8 , withholding of remova l, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)( 3), or protec tion under the Convention Ag ainst Torture (“CAT” ), see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c) , 1208.17, 1208.18. Cifuentes did
not testify that he suffe red perse cution or torture in Guatema la befor e he enter ed the United States. Rather, he expressed a vag ue fea r that if deporte d, he “could be” harme d or have a “neg ative
exp erience” at the hands of the g overnme nt, a neig hbor, or “people in g ang s thinking that he was returning to G uatemala with money .” These “unsupported assumptions or suppositions ,” as the I J
appropr iately found, evince neither an objectively rea sonable, well-founde d fea r of returnin g to Guatema la nor a likelihood that he will b e t o rt ured. Be cause Cifuentes fails to meet his asy lum burden of proof, he also fails t o s atisfy the highe r burden require d to establish elig ibilit y for withholding of r emoval. See R reshpja v. Gonzales , 420 F.3d 551, 557 ( 6th Cir. 2005).

We likewise aff

irm the I J ’s denial of Cifuentes’s “spec ial rule” application for canc ellation of remova l. Cifuentes’s stated basis for specia l rule elig ibilit y is that he reg istered for benef its under the settlement ag ree ment in American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh , 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal.

- 2 -No. 10-3915

Cifuentes v. Holder

1 9 9 1 ). T h e I J conclude d that Cifuentes failed to demonstrate that he timely applied for ABC benef its. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c )(4) (A) (“A n alien apply ing for r elief or protec tion from remova l has the burden of proof to establish

. . . the applicable elig ibilit y require ments”); id. § 1229a(c )(4) (C) (per mitti ng I J to “base a cre dibilit y deter mination on the demea

nor, candor , or responsivene ss of the applicant or witness, the inhere nt plausibilit y of the applicant’ s or witness’s acc ount, the consistency betwee n the applicant’ s or witness’s written and oral statements
. . . , [and] the consistency of such
statements with other evidenc e of rec ord”)

. Cifuentes testified befor e the I J that in 1990, he “we nt
to a notary office with other friends” in California and “fill[ed] out some forms,” though he “could
not testify exactly as to the nature or purpose of those forms.” He claims he lost his copy of this
paper work and did not chec k back with the I mmigra tion Service fo r “m an y , many y ear s.” Silvan L opez submitt ed an aff

idavit to the I J on Cifuentes’s behalf stating that he saw Cifuentes filling out paper work at an office wher e individuals wer e apply ing for ABC benef its, but L opez’s aff

idavit
contra dicted Cifuentes’s acc ount of how they met and, in any case , L opez did not specific ally attest that he saw Cifuentes fill out ABC paper work. The I J ultimately conclude d that Cifuentes’s story

was “not plausible or cre dible.” Be cause a rea sonable adjudicator would not be compel l ed to conclude otherwise, w e af firm this denial.
We deny the petition.

- 3 -