NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAUNG LATYAR, No. 13-73532
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-990-709
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Maung Latyar, a native and citizen of Burma, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determinations that Latyar failed
to establish an objectively reasonable future fear where he failed to establish a
particularized threat of harm. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.
2003) (future fear too speculative). We reject Latyar’s contentions that the agency
failed to consider record evidence or failed to explain its reasons sufficiently. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, Latyar’s
asylum claim fails.
Because Latyar failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye,
453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Latyar failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured
by the Burmese government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-73532