FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 4 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARMANDO TOLENTINO- Nos. 18-72252 POCHOTITLAN, 19-72740 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-259-705 v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 2, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and IKUTA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Armando Tolentino-Pochotitlan, a Mexican citizen, petitions for review of two decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”): one, affirming an Immigration Judges’s (“IJ”) decision denying him withholding of removal and * 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). relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and the other denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief for substantial evidence, Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019), and the denial of the motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2020), we deny the petition in part and dismiss in part. I Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision affirming the denial of withholding of removal. An applicant seeking withholding of removal must show that his “life or freedom would be threatened” in the proposed country of removal on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b). “[The] applicant must show a ‘clear probability’ of future persecution,” Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted), and the stated protected ground must be “a reason” for persecuting the applicant, Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358 (9th Cir. 2017). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Tolentino- Pochotitlan has not shown that he suffered past persecution. Tolentino- 2 Pochotitlan’s proffered evidence as to the past persecution he suffered involved one episode that was not “so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm,” Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1028 (citation omitted), and another that did not involve a credible threat of violence, cf. Ayala v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 1012, 1021 (9th Cir. 2017) (extortion combined with the threat of violence on the basis of a protected characteristic can constitute persecution). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion, and Tolentino-Pochotitlan has not demonstrated that the harm to his sisters “create[s] a pattern of persecution closely tied to [himself].” See Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038, 1043–44 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that there is no “clear probability” that Tolentino-Pochotitlan will be persecuted in Mexico. There is no evidence that any of the individuals who mistreated him would likely do so again, nor does the record compel the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals