NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 5 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCO BERNAL-GARCIA, No. 18-71856 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-647-803 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 2, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: GOULD, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Francisco Bernal-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition. We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims for substantial evidence. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Bernal- Garcia failed to meet his burden of establishing past persecution based on harm he allegedly suffered by his father. See Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010). Bernal-Garcia’s testimony that his father used to hit him as a young child, especially when he does not personally remember the alleged abuse, and that he once witnessed his father hit his mother, does not compel a finding that Bernal- Garcia experienced harm rising to the level of persecution. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (“We must uphold the BIA’s determination unless ‘the evidence not only supports, but compels the conclusion that the asylum decision was incorrect.’” (quoting Kataria v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2000))); Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that persecution “is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive” (quoting Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 672 (9th Cir. 2004))). 2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that, even assuming that Bernal-Garcia alleged membership in cognizable social groups, Bernal-Garcia failed to meet his burden to establish a reasonable fear of future 2 persecution based on his family membership and on his membership in the proposed social group Bernal-Garcia describes as “young, Mexican males in a conscriptive relationship that they are unable to leave.” This second social group is based on Bernal-Garcia’s fear of recruitment by drug cartels. As to Bernal-Garcia’s proposed social group based on family membership, Bernal-Garcia testified that he feared retribution by people in Mexico who had been harmed by Bernal-Garcia’s father. However, Petitioner also testified that his paternal grandparents and uncles continue to live in Mexico unharmed, undermining his fear of future harm on this basis. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals