NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 15 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCO GUZMAN-CHICAS, No. 17-72049 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-975-980 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 9, 2022** Seattle, Washington Before: NGUYEN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Francisco Guzman-Chicas petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision denying his withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claims. We review the BIA’s denials of relief for “substantial evidence.” Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. * 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). 2014). To reverse the BIA, “evidence [must] not only support[] a contrary conclusion, but compel[] it.” Id. (simplified). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.1 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal. Withholding of removal requires the petitioner to demonstrate that his “life or freedom” would be threatened in his country of removal because of his “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)). The BIA reasonably concluded that Guzman-Chicas did not demonstrate past persecution because the two anonymous threatening notes Guzman-Chicas received never led to any harm. After relocating to a rural town, Guzman-Chicas never received another threat, despite continuing to work as a police officer. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (persecution is “an ‘extreme concept’ that includes the infliction of suffering or harm,” and “unfulfilled threats, without more,” generally do not constitute past persecution) (simplified); Diaz-Escobar v. INS, 782 1 Other than making a passing reference to remanding on his asylum claim, Guzman-Chicas provides no argument on why the BIA was wrong to deny his asylum application. Guzman-Chicas has thus abandoned this claim. See Martinez- Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”). 2 F.2d 1488, 1493 (9th Cir. 1986) (anonymous, unfulfilled threatening notes “do[] not establish a reasonable expectation of persecution”). The BIA also reasonably concluded that Guzman-Chicas has not shown a well-founded fear of future persecution because he successfully relocated his family to a rural area where he experienced no threats of harm. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)–(3); cf. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[A]n applicant ‘does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of nationality . . . . [and] it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.’” (simplified)). As the Immigration Judge …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals