NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 10 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NEXIS DAVID BELLORIN UMANZOR, No. 20-70279 Petitioner, Agency No. A216-574-808 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 14, 2021 Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,** District Judge. Concurrence by Judge KORMAN Nexis David Bellorin Umanzor, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252,1 and we deny the petition for review. Where the BIA “affirmed the results of the decision below pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) …. [w]e review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination.” Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted). “We review factual findings for substantial evidence and legal questions de novo.” Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020). 1. Bellorin Umanzor challenges the IJ’s conclusion that he failed to demonstrate past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution for purposes of his asylum claim. “In order to establish eligibility for asylum on the basis of past persecution, an applicant must show … an incident, or incidents, that rise to the level of persecution ….” Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 655 (9th Cir. 2000). Bellorin Umanzor argues that the threats he received were sufficient by themselves to establish past persecution. The record, however, does not compel the conclusion that these threats make this case one of the “small category of cases [where] … the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm” sufficient to constitute past persecution. Marcos v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 1112, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of the case, we recite only those facts necessary to decide the appeal. 2 Bellorin Umanzor also contends that his case is analogous to Ruano v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2002), and thus the harassment he experienced, cumulatively considered, constitutes past persecution. When compared to the facts in Ruano, 301 F.3d at 1157, 1158, 1160 (where petitioner received between thirty and thirty-five individualized death threats at home and work, was driven to quit his job, and was repeatedly chased by the same armed men over the span of four years), the record here does not compel the conclusion that the cumulative effect of Bellorin Umanzor’s mistreatment is sufficient …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals