Court Opinion

ID: 9365640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-24 18:01:28.219848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:46.661032
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 24 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSA VASQUEZ RAMOS; et al.,                     No.    20-71462

                Petitioners,                    Agency Nos.       A206-913-364
                                                                  A206-913-363
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney                    MEMORANDUM*
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                           Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Rosa Vasquez Ramos and her minor son, natives and citizens of Guatemala,

petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their

application for asylum and Vasquez Ramos’s applications for withholding of

      *
             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).
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir.

2020). We deny the petition for review.

      We do not disturb the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to

establish Vasquez Ramos suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner’s past

experiences, including two beatings, even considered cumulatively, did not compel

a finding of past persecution); see also Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626,

633 n.2 (9th Cir. 2022) (court need not resolve whether de novo or substantial

evidence review applies, where result would be the same under either standard).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners failed to

establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333

F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too

speculative”).

      Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, Vasquez Ramos

failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Villegas Sanchez v.

Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1183 (9th Cir. 2021). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim,

and Vasquez Ramos’s withholding of removal claim, fail.

      We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to the cognizability of their

                                          2                                     20-71462
particular social group because the BIA did not deny relief on this ground. See

Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited

to the grounds relied on by the BIA).

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Vasquez Ramos failed to show it is more likely than not she will be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         3                                    20-71462