NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HUGO RENE MAYEN DUBON, No. 15-71738 Petitioner, Agency No. A096-395-027 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 2, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, KOH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Hugo Rene Mayen Dubon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mayen Dubon failed to establish past persecution based upon the threats he received in Guatemala. 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 agency’s conclusion that Mayen Dubon failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution by political opponents or children of ex-guerillas. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003) (to qualify for withholding of removal a petitioner must show that it is more probable than not that he would suffer future persecution); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Mayen Dubon’s withholding of removal claim fails. Mayen Dubon does not make any arguments challenging the agency’s denial of CAT protection. See Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1125 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). 2 15-71738 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 15-71738 15-71738 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Hugo Mayen Dubon v. Merrick Garland 9 June 2022 Agency Unpublished 0e0279c52fd6e218d4e446884c05989b87626793
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals