Court Opinion

ID: 9363224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 18:58:03.611724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:30.104111
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 22 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ESTRADA-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Jose               No.    17-72658
Tomas Estrada Cuellar,
                                                Agency No. A072-876-947
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted December 7, 2022**
                            San Francisco, California

Before: NGUYEN and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and BOUGH,*** District
Judge.

      Jose Estrada-Sanchez (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Guatemala,

      *
             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).
      ***
            The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying

his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. §1252. We review the BIA’s determinations for substantial evidence.

Diaz-Jimenez v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 955, 958 (9th Cir. 2018). We deny the petition

for review.

      1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Petitioner did not

demonstrate his single beating amounted to past persecution, an extreme concept

usually characterized as severe and sustained. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336,

339–40 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although a reasonable factfinder could have found this

incident sufficient to establish past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder

would be compelled to do so.”).

      2. Petitioner did not have any further encounters with the kidnappers who

assaulted him, presented no evidence that anyone came looking for him, and has

not received any more threats since that day in 1982. In Gu v. Gonzales, we

upheld the denial of asylum even though the applicant was abducted by the police,

held in detention for three days, beaten severely, including with weapons, and only

released upon certain assurances and payment. 454 F.3d 1014, 1017–18, 1021 (9th

Cir. 2006). In this case, the evidence does not show that Petitioner sustained any

harm. The encounter in which he was beat and kidnapped was brief, the Petitioner

was not held and interrogated, and the record does not provide specific details of

                                           2
further threats. Cf. Aguilera-Cota v. INS, 914 F.2d 1375, 1379 (9th Cir. 1990)

(“Where the evidence [of a threat] is not available, the applicant’s testimony will

suffice if it is credible, persuasive, and specific.”). The record does not compel the

conclusion that Petitioner has shown past persecution.1

         3. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Petitioner did not

show it more likely than not that he would be tortured upon return to Guatemala

because the evidence presented by Petitioner was too speculative. See Nuru v.

Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2017).

The civil war in Guatemala ended more than two decades ago, multiple military

officials who committed human rights crimes were brought to justice, and

Petitioner has offered no evidence that he has been threatened since leaving the

country 40 years ago.

         PETITION DENIED.

1
    Petitioner does not argue that he has shown future persecution.

                                            3