Case Name: Antonio LOPEZ-AMAYA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-23
Citations: 439 F. App'x 640
Docket Number: No. 09-71102
Parties: Antonio LOPEZ-AMAYA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 439
Pages: 640–641

Head Matter:
Antonio LOPEZ-AMAYA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71102.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 23, 2011.
Antonio Lopez-Amaya, Mira Loma, CA, pro se.
Russell John Verby, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Antonio Lopez-Amaya, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's determination that Lopez-Amaya did not suffer past persecution because, even considered cumulatively, the three isolated threats by unknown individuals over an eight-year period did not rise to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ's finding that Lopez-Amaya failed to establish his fear of persecution is well-founded because he remained unharmed in El Salvador for four years after he received the last threat. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir.2006). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.
Because Lopez-Amaya failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the IJ's denial of CAT relief because Lopez-Amaya failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured upon return to El Salvador. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.