QUINONEZ TOMAS v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-27No. No. 20-70979

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court denied the petition for review, affirming the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing the appeal and upholding the immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief.

Juan Alberto Quinonez Tomas, a Guatemalan national, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal challenging an immigration judge's denial of his asylum application and related relief. The court examined whether substantial evidence supported the agency's factual findings that Quinonez Tomas neither experienced persecution in Guatemala nor demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution. The court found the agency's determinations adequately supported by the record and upheld the denial of asylum relief.

Because Quinonez Tomas failed to qualify for asylum, he was also ineligible for withholding of removal. Additionally, his request for relief under the Convention Against Torture was denied because he did not establish it was more likely than not that he would face torture by or with government consent or acquiescence upon return to Guatemala.

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

Key issues

Whether harm experienced in Guatemala constituted persecution
Whether applicant established a well-founded fear of future persecution
Whether applicant demonstrated eligibility for withholding of removal
Whether applicant met the standard for Convention Against Torture relief

Procedural posture

The petitioner sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his asylum application and related forms of relief.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Alberto Quinonez Tomas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying his application for asylum, 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 agencys factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys determination that the harm Quinonez Tomas experienced in Guatemala did not rise to the level of persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[C]ases with threats alone, particularly anonymous or vague ones, rarely constitute persecution.”); 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.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Substantial evidence also supports the agencys determination that Quinonez Tomas failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed “to present compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”); see also Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1029 (applicant did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution where substantial evidence supported the agencys finding that he could relocate).

Thus, Quinonez Tomass asylum claim fails.

Because Quinonez Tomas failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case, he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys denial of CAT relief because Quinonez Tomas 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); see also Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.