NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Diana Caroline Flores-Serrano; Fernanda No. 21-124 Elizabeth Aguilar-Flores, Agency Nos. A209-300-676 Petitioners, A209-300-677 v. MEMORANDUM* Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 17, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Diana Caroline Flores-Serrano and her minor child petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their 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. Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency action. Tapia v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 997, 999 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for substantial evidence the factual determinations underlying a denial of asylum and a determination that the petitioner is not eligible for relief under CAT. Gui v. I.N.S., 280 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Elias- Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)); Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review. 1. Asylum and Withholding of Removal. “To be eligible for asylum, a petitioner has the burden to demonstrate a likelihood of ‘persecution or a well- founded fear of persecution on account of . . . membership in a particular social group.’” Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Flores-Serrano failed to demonstrate a likelihood of persecution. The incidents described by Flores-Serrano do not rise to the level of past persecution contemplated by the Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). Although threats alone can constitute past persecution, “[u]nfulfilled threats are very rarely sufficient to rise to the level of persecution.” Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 647 (9th Cir. 2021). We are “most likely to find persecution where threats are repeated, specific and combined with confrontation or other mistreatment.” Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1062 (quoting Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 2 1028 (9th Cir. 2019)). Flores-Serrano did not present such evidence here, especially as it is not clear that the three gang-related incidents to which she testified were in any way related. Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Flores-Serrano did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. Although Flores-Serrano testified credibly and established a subjective fear of persecution, Gui, 280 F.3d at 1228, she has not met her burden to show that such fear is “objectively reasonable.” Id. (quoting Ladha v. INS, 215 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals