Court Opinion

ID: 9901894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 18:00:51.202748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:41.243048
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SILVIA VICTORIA ORTEGA                          No. 23-366
BAUTISTA; et al.,                               Agency Nos.
                                                A215-815-035
             Petitioners,                       A215-815-036
                                                A215-815-037
 v.
                                                A215-815-038
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,                                        MEMORANDUM*

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted November 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Silvia Victoria Ortega Bautista and her three minor children, natives and

citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision

      *
             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).
denying their applications 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 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 they suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See

See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003) (discrimination and

harassment did not rise to the level of 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, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”).

Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they 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 and withholding of

removal claims fail.

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

because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by

                                          2                                     23-366
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. 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                                   23-366