FLORES QUINTANILLA v. WILKINSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-19No. No. 15-70635

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied, and the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing Flores Quintanilla's appeal was affirmed.

Julio Cesar Flores Quintanilla, a Salvadoran citizen, sought judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision upholding an immigration judge's denial of his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture claims. The court applied substantial evidence review to the agency's factual findings and found them supported by the record. Flores Quintanilla could not demonstrate either that he suffered past persecution or that he faced a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his circumstances in El Salvador. Because he failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of removal claim also necessarily failed. Additionally, he did not meet the threshold for Convention Against Torture protection, which requires showing it is more likely than not that he would be tortured upon return.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether evidence supported a finding of past persecution
Whether applicant demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution
Whether applicant met the standard for Convention Against Torture protection
Whether withholding of removal claim was dependent on asylum eligibility

Procedural posture

Flores Quintanilla petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture claims.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Julio Cesar Flores Quintanilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying his 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 agencys factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIAs determination that Flores Quintanilla failed to establish past persecution in El Salvador. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone ․ constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIAs conclusion that Flores Quintanilla failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Flores Quintanillas asylum claim fails. Additionally, because Flores Quintanilla did not establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Substantial evidence supports the BIAs denial of Flores Quintanillas CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating standard).

Flores Quintanilla does not challenge the agencys determinations regarding the additional evidence he submitted on appeal. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a partys opening brief are waived).

As stated in the courts March 17, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.