NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 23 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NANCY PATRICIA ROJAS-GUILLEN, No. 19-71702 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-681-922 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 20, 2021** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Nancy Patricia Rojas-Guillen, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm Rojas-Guillen experienced did not rise to the level of persecution. See Duran- Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did not compel finding that harm rises to the level of persecution where perpetrators took no violent actions against the petitioner or his family beyond threats). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Rojas-Guillen did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present “compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”). We do not address Rojas-Guillen’s contentions regarding her credibility, as the IJ found she was credible. Thus, Rojas-Guillen’s asylum claim fails. Because Rojas-Guillen failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case, she did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Rojas-Guillen failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or 2 19-71702 with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We lack jurisdiction to consider Rojas-Guillen’s contentions concerning voluntary departure because she did not raise them to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented below). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise denied. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 19-71702 19-71702 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Nancy Rojas-Guillen v. Merrick Garland 23 April 2021 Agency Unpublished ecfe1f75295a3aa0a5eee8f4d14c1e51ae649d5c
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals