Yanet Pupo Mora v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 19 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YANET PUPO MORA, No. 20-71997
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-910-668
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 6, 2021**
Seattle, Washington
Before: CHRISTEN and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and KOBAYASHI,***
District Judge.
*
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 Leslie E. Kobayashi, United States District Judge for
the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
Petitioner, Yanet Pupo Mora, is a native and citizen of Cuba. She petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision to deny her
application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
1. The BIA’s conclusion that petitioner’s mistreatment by the Cuban
authorities did not rise to the level of persecution is supported by substantial
evidence. See Regalado-Escobar v. Holder, 717 F.3d 724, 726–27 (9th Cir. 2013)
(“We review . . . the BIA’s factual findings, including whether an applicant was
persecuted on account of [her] political opinion, under the substantial evidence
standard.”). “Persecution is the infliction of suffering or harm upon those who
differ (in race, religion or political opinion) in a way regarded as offensive” and is
“an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society
regards as offensive.” Krotova v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1080, 1084 (9th Cir. 2005)
(quotation marks omitted) (quoting Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th
Cir. 1998)).
Petitioner primarily relies on three encounters with the Cuban authorities to
support her claim of past persecution. First, petitioner testified that she was
assaulted by two police officers in front of her young son. During the assault one
of the police officers kicked petitioner in the back and stomach. Petitioner testified
2
that she did not sustain any injuries that required medical attention. The officers
did not explain why they beat petitioner. On two other occasions, petitioner was
detained and questioned for four to six hours. Petitioner was not harmed while she
was detained and was not charged with any crime. Considered together, these
incidents do not describe harm so extreme as to compel a finding of past
persecution. See id.
2. The BIA’s conclusion that petitioner did not establish a well-founded fear
of future persecution is supported by substantial evidence. “Absent evidence of
past persecution, [petitioner] must establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution by showing both a subjective fear of future persecution, as well as an
objectively ‘reasonable possibility’ of persecution upon return to the country in
question.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation
omitted). Petitioner does not claim that she is a political dissident. Nor does the
record compel a finding that the Cuban authorities believe her to be a dissident.
Although Cuban authorities have detained petitioner twice, a country condition
report in the record indicates it is not uncommon for Cuban citizens to be detained
and questioned by the authorities arbitrarily. Thus, substantial evidence supports
the BIA’s finding that petitioner has not established the Cuban government is
likely to single her out based on her political opinion.
3
PETITION DENIED
4