Santiago MacIas-padilla v. Jefferson Sessions

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 05 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SANTIAGO MACIAS-PADILLA, No. 15-71121 AKA Javier Sanchez, Agency No. A076-604-312 Petitioner, Board of Immigration Appeals v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 8, 2018** Pasadena, California Before: GOULD and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY,*** District Judge. * 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). *** The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. Santiago Macias-Padilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) denial of his application for withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). Reviewing the Board’s findings for substantial evidence, we deny Macias-Padilla’s petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009). 1. To qualify for withholding of removal, Macias-Padilla must establish a “clear probability” that his “life or freedom would be threatened” if he returned to Mexico because of his “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1199 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987); and then 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A)). Eligibility for withholding of removal can be established by demonstrating past persecution, see id., or by “demonstrat[ing] . . . a subjective fear of persecution in the future . . . that . . . is objectively reasonable.” Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009). Macias-Padilla contends he suffered past persecution, and fears future persecution, by the Caballeros Templarios cartel due to his membership in the Padilla family. 2. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Macias-Padilla did not suffer past persecution. Although Macias-Padilla testified he was verbally 2 threatened once by a Caballeros Templarios cartel member in 2007, “[t]hreats standing alone . . . constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases . . . .” Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, although “harm to a petitioner’s close family members or associates may be relevant to assessing whether the petitioner suffered past persecution,” Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1091–92 (9th Cir. 2010), the harm generally must be inflicted to send the petitioner a message, cause the petitioner emotional harm, or as part of a pattern of persecution closely tied to the petitioner. See, e.g., Sumolang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080, 1084 (9th Cir. 2013); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059–60; Njuguna v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 765, 770–72 (9th Cir. 2004). The incidents in this case, spread across six ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals