NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA DEJESUS BUSTAMANTE- No. 14-71672
ANAYA, AKA Maria Bustamante,
Agency No. A200-963-462
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Maria de Jesus Bustamante-Anaya, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008),
and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the attack
Bustamante-Anaya experienced in 1993 was not on account of a protected ground.
See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009) (“to demonstrate
that a protected ground was ‘at least one central reason’ for persecution, an
applicant must prove that such ground was a cause of the persecutors’ acts”).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that her remaining
experiences in Mexico did not rise to the level of persecution. See Halim v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009); Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th
Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone . . . constitute past persecution in only a small
category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause
significant actual ‘suffering or harm.’) (citation omitted). Further, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s determination that Bustamante-Anaya failed to
establish it is more likely than not she will face persecution in Mexico. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future
persecution “too speculative”). Thus, her withholding of removal claim fails.
2 14-71672
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Bustamante-
Anaya’s CAT claim because she failed to establish it is more likely than not she
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican
government if returned. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-71672