QUINONEZ TOMAS v. GARLAND (2021)

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

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied, and the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing the appeal is upheld.

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 asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief. The court examined whether the agency's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence across each claim.

The court found that the harm Quinonez Tomas experienced in Guatemala did not meet the legal threshold of persecution, and that he failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. Because his asylum claim could not succeed, his withholding of removal claim necessarily failed as well. Additionally, the court determined that Quinonez Tomas did not establish that torture was more likely than not if he returned to Guatemala, making him ineligible for Convention Against Torture protection.

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

Key issues

Whether past harm constituted persecution under asylum law
Whether applicant established a well-founded fear of future persecution
Whether applicant met the standard for withholding of removal
Whether applicant demonstrated likelihood of torture under the Convention Against Torture

Procedural posture

Quinonez Tomas petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture 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.