NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 12 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ISIDRO REVUELTA REVUELTA, No. 17-72258 Petitioner, Agency No. A077-419-449 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 4, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: SILER,*** WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Isidro Revuelta Revuelta (“Revuelta”) petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and moves for remand to the Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. * 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 Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. § 1252. We deny the petition for review because the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) and BIA’s decisions denying asylum and withholding of removal are supported by substantial evidence. See Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining the standard of review). We also deny the motion to remand based on Pereira v. Sessions because Revuelta’s argument is foreclosed by Ninth Circuit precedent. Revuelta claims that he is entitled to asylum because he has demonstrated that he cannot return to Mexico “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of . . . membership in particular [] social group[s].” See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(A). To establish past persecution, Revuelta must show “(1) an incident, or incidents, that rise to the level of persecution; (2) that is on account of one of the statutorily-protected grounds; and (3) is committed by the government or forces the government is either unable or unwilling to control.” Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 655-56 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions concluding that Revuelta failed to show past persecution on account of one of the statutorily-protected grounds are supported by substantial evidence. In 2013, while in Michoacán, Mexico to repair and sell two properties he owned, Revuelta claims that he was abducted by four or five armed men, members 2 17-72258 of a cartel called the Knights Templar. He testified that these men took him to a warehouse where there were many people. The armed men instructed him to sign a form that he understood was to assign rights to one of his properties to the cartel. While at the warehouse, Revuelta witnessed another man being beaten but was not physically harmed himself and left on foot. Subsequently, Revuelta received a telephone call instructing him to go to a car wash. He complied and testified that he met two unknown men at the car wash. During this incident, Revuelta overheard a telephone conversation between one of the unknown men and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals