NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 13 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EVANGELINA HERNANDEZ-GARCIA, No. 15-73059 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-681-694 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 6, 2019** Portland, Oregon Before: MURGUIA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and GAITAN,*** District Judge. Evangelina Hernandez-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming 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). *** The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation. denial of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum. Hernandez claimed only that discriminatory comments were made about her because of her sexual orientation. Being “teased, bothered, discriminated against,” or “harassed” does “not compel a conclusion” that a petitioner suffered past persecution. Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that the Mexican government is neither unable nor unwilling to control mistreatment of lesbian and gay citizens. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). 2. Because Hernandez failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof required to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). 3. Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. Hernandez’s fear of being “beaten” in Mexico, however reasonable, does not compel the conclusion that she is “more likely than not” to undergo torture. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.18(a)(2), 1208.16(c)(2). PETITION DENIED. 2 15-73059 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Evangelina Hernandez-Garcia v. William Barr 13 June 2019 Agency Unpublished 33e03e8fcd33284acd70ebd252b8fd16ca3836e6
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals