NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OMAR CRUZ-VILLASENOR, No. 18-71989 Petitioner, Agency No. A213-043-938 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 11, 2019** Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Omar Cruz-Villasenor, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s 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 * 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). agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cruz- Villasenor failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in Mexico. 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 Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th Cir. 2011) (in the absence of past persecution, the burden is on the applicant to show that relocation would be unreasonable). Thus, Cruz-Villasenor’s asylum claim fails. In this case, because Cruz-Villasenor failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Cruz-Villasenor failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 18-71989 18-71989 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Omar Cruz-Villasenor v. William Barr 18 June 2019 Agency Unpublished 0f7a156bd188f40618c7c270ab0fb7c91f8758e1
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals