Hugo MacIel v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 546 F. App'x 711 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUGO RODRIGUES MACIEL, No. 12-70648
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-447-312
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Hugo Rodrigues Maciel, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that even if Maciel’s asylum
application was timely, he failed to establish past persecution in Brazil based on
the threats he and his family received following a police officer’s mistaken
shooting of his brother. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.
2003) (unfulfilled threats constituted harassment, not persecution). Substantial
evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Maciel failed to demonstrate a well-
founded fear of future harm because his mother and brother remain in Brazil
unharmed. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003); see also
Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (claim weakened or undercut
when similarly-situated family members remain in applicant’s home country
without incident). Accordingly, Maciel’s asylum claim fails.
Because Maciel failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
2 12-70648
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Maciel failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured
if returned to Brazil. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-70648