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.