FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 28 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALBERTO ZAVALA BORJA, AKA No. 17-71414 Milton Rosales Gonzalez, Agency No. A206-097-643 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 23, 2019** Seattle, Washington Before: IKUTA and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,*** District Judge. * 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). *** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Alberto Zavala Borja petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The BIA’s determination that Zavala did not suffer harm that was sufficiently severe to constitute past persecution is supported by substantial evidence. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000). In contrast to the intensity of threats we have previously held to constitute past persecution in the absence of physical harm, see, e.g., Ruano v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1155, 1159–61 (9th Cir. 2002), Zavala received only four threats, the threats occurred in the space of a single week, and his only confrontation with armed men ended with him stating that he did not want any problems and walking away. These threats are not the sort of “extreme” or “especially menacing” threats necessary to establish past persecution in the absence of physical harm. Lim, 224 F.3d at 936. We reject Zavala’s argument that the BIA failed to consider the threats in context, given that the BIA noted that evidence of country conditions reflected the political power as well as the violence of auto-defense groups. The BIA’s citation to specific facts, supporting cases, and excerpts within those cases “evidence[s] an individualized review of [Zavala’s] circumstances,” and constitutes sufficient explanation to 2 support its decision. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Castillo v. INS, 951 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 1991)).1 Because the BIA’s determination that Zavala did not suffer past persecution is supported by substantial evidence, the BIA properly placed the burden on Zavala to show a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a), (b)(1)(ii). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Zavala’s fear of future persecution is not objectively reasonable, given that from the time Zavala left Mexico in early 2014, he has received no threats and his relatives that were also confronted by the armed men, though threatened on fewer occasions, have neither received threats nor incurred harm. See Aruta v. INS, 80 F.3d 1389, 1395 (9th ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals