Abacu Jimenez-Interiano v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 16 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ABACU JIMENEZ-INTERIANO, No. 19-71674
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-024-318
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 8, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Abacu Jimenez-Interiano, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
*
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).
agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Jimenez-
Interiano did not establish past persecution. See Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592
F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An applicant alleging past persecution has the
burden of establishing that (1) his treatment rises to the level of persecution; (2) the
persecution was on account of one or more protected grounds; and (3) the
persecution was committed by the government, or by forces that the government
was unable or unwilling to control.”); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012,
1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an extreme concept that does not include
every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive” (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
determination that Jimenez-Interiano failed to establish a clear probability of future
persecution in Guatemala. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th
Cir. 2010) (fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable where
similarly-situated family members remained in petitioner’s home country
unharmed). The record does not support Jimenez-Interiano’s contention that the
BIA failed to address arguments. Thus, Jimenez-Interiano’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
2 19-71674
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Jimenez-Interiano failed to show it is more likely than not he 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).
Finally, the record does not support Jimenez-Interiano’s contention that his
notice to appear lacked the place of his hearing.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 2) is otherwise
denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-71674