FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GASPAR MENDEZ ORTIZ, No. 13-72900
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-751-784
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Gaspar Mendez Ortiz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings and we review de novo questions of law. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Mendez Ortiz’s
experiences in Guatemala, where he once heard gunshots and Awakatecos threw
rocks at him one time and pushed him in a market another time, did not rise to the
level of persecution. See id. at 1059-60 (record did not compel a finding of past
persecution where applicant was beaten and robbed twice, and accosted by
threatening mobs); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003)
(harassment, threats, and one beating did not compel a finding of past persecution).
Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding as to future persecution
where Mendez Ortiz failed to demonstrate sufficient individualized risk that it is
more likely than not that he would be persecuted if he returned to Guatemala. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of persecution
“too speculative”); see also Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[a]n applicant for
withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of
individualized-risk evidence to prevail than would an asylum applicant”). We
reject Mendez Ortiz’s contention that the BIA’s analysis was inadequate and
incomplete. Thus, Mendez Ortiz’s withholding of removal claim fails.
2 13-72900
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Mendez Ortiz failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008); see also
Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2013) (portions of country
reports contradicted petitioner’s claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-72900