NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 13 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GUADALUPE ORTIZ DIAZ; PAULINA No. 19-71497 MONSERRAT RUIZ ORTIZ, Agency Nos. A208-307-383 Petitioners, A208-307-384 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 11, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: McKEOWN, HUNSAKER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Guadalupe Ortiz Diaz and her minor daughter Paulina Ruiz Ortiz, natives of Mexico, petition for review of the denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (CAT). We review factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, and such findings “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). Constitutional and legal challenges are reviewed de novo. Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 385 n.3 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). We deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) conclusion that Petitioners failed to show a well-founded fear of persecution.1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13. Petitioners failed to show anything more than a speculative risk of future persecution. As to her ex- boyfriend, the record shows that he threatened Ortiz Diaz on only one occasion, after their separation, when he said that she would “be responsible for the consequences” of not letting him see their daughter and that he would “show [or throw] [her] with one of [his cartel] bosses” unless she complied. However, the ex-boyfriend never acted upon this threat. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[U]nfulfilled threats . . . constitute harassment rather than persecution.”). 1 Because Petitioners failed to address past persecution, their claims on appeal rise or fall with their ability to show error with respect to the BIA’s future persecution determination. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8); Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”). 2 Nor have Petitioners shown a likelihood of persecution by either Ortiz Diaz’s ex-boyfriend’s cartel or its rival. Ortiz Diaz’s ex-boyfriend was able to leave his cartel for several months without being harmed and he willingly returned. Thus, there’s no reason to think that Petitioners are in jeopardy if he decides to leave the cartel again, especially since Ortiz Diaz and her ex-boyfriend have been broken up for ten years now. Further, although the ex-boyfriend was kidnapped by a rival cartel, he was released after paying a ransom and there’s no reason to think the kidnappers would be interested in ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals