NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NANCY MENA-JUAREZ et al., No. 18-71635 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A094-798-502 A094-798-503 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 21, 2020** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: WALLACE, BEA, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Nancy Beatriz Mena-Juarez and her minor son, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an order by an immigration judge (IJ) denying their applications for 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). 1 (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Applying the standard enacted by the REAL ID Act, we review for substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (reviewing denial of withholding of removal and CAT claims for substantial evidence and explaining that “we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion”); Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010) (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence). “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with and incorporates specific findings of the IJ while adding its own reasoning, we review [the] decisions” from both the IJ and BIA (collectively, the “Agency”). Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). 1. Mena-Juarez bears the burden of proving eligibility for withholding of removal and must demonstrate that she “is unable or unwilling to return to [her country of nationality] ‘because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” Doe v. Holder, 736 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). We have observed before that “[p]ersecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citation omitted). 2 Mena-Juarez testified that two teenage boys, about fifteen or sixteen years old, approached her son, about ten years old at the time, and threatened to kill him. The teenage boys approached Mena-Juarez’s son several times and, on some occasions, asked the son if he had a cellphone. After Mena-Juarez reported the incident to the police, the teenage boys approached her son again and warned him about Mena- Juarez going to the police. While Mena-Juarez’s “experiences are disturbing and regrettable, they do not evince actions so severe as to compel a finding of past persecution.” Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005) ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals