NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GUILLERMO WILFREDO BARRERAHERNANDEZ, AKA Guillermo Wilfredo 

Barrera, AKA Guillermo Borrero, AKA 

Guillermo Lariosa Hernandez,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-72826

Agency No. A095-024-884

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 24, 2016**

Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Guillermo Wilfredo Barrera-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his 

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, 

 

* 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

JUN 2 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 14-72826 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 

(“CAT”). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. 

Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the 

petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Barrera-Hernandez

established an exception to the asylum filing deadline to excuse his untimely 

application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 

F.3d 1088, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to 

his asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that BarreraHernandez failed to establish past harm rising to the level of persecution. See 

Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that persecution 

is “an extreme concept”) (quotation and citation omitted); Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 

929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone . . . constitute past persecution in 

only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to 

cause significant actual suffering or harm.”) (quotation and citation omitted).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Barrera-Hernandez 

failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in 
 3 14-72826 

Nicaragua. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution “too 

speculative”). We reject his contentions that the agency ignored evidence or erred 

in analyzing his claim. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to withholding of 

removal.

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of BarreraHernandez’s CAT claim because he failed to show it is more likely than not that he 

would be tortured by the government of Nicaragua, or with its consent or 

acquiescence. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). We 

reject Barrera-Hernandez’s contentions that the agency’s analysis was insufficient.

See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA adequately

considered the evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.