NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
ELIAS AVILA-GUZMAN, No. 13-74256
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-448-343
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.
Elias Avila-Guzman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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
*
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).
have jurisdiction 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 determination that the harm
Avila-Guzman suffered in Mexico did not rise to the level of persecution, see
Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (lifetime of harassment
and one incident of violence did not compel a finding of past persecution), and the
agency’s determination that he failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution, see Castro-Martinez v. Holder, 674 F.3d 1073, 1081 (9th Cir. 2011)
(petitioner’s statement that he did not seek police protection, without more, was
insufficient to establish the government was unable or unwilling to control his
attackers). Thus, Avila-Guzman’s asylum claim fails.
Because petitioner 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 Avila-Guzman failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by the Mexican government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See
2 13-74256
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-74256