NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 6 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HECTOR ARNOLDO MOLINA, No. 14-72539
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-439-924
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DANA J. BOENTE, Acting Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Hector Arnoldo Molina, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have 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 review de novo due process claims, Vilchez v.
Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 2012). We deny the petition for review.
We reject Molina’s contentions based on streamlining because the BIA did
not streamline his case.
Molina does not contest the BIA’s determination that he did not challenge
the IJ’s conclusion that he was statutorily ineligible for asylum.
Molina testified that although his family had problems with guerrillas during
the 1980s, he was never physically harmed in Guatemala, and he was not sure if he
would be harmed or tortured if returned. Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that Molina failed to demonstrate he was persecuted in
Guatemala. See 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.”)
(internal quotation and citation omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s conclusion that Molina failed to show it is more likely than not he will be
persecuted in returned. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)
(possibility of persecution too speculative). Thus, we deny the petition as to
Molina’s withholding of removal claim.
2 14-72539
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Molina failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government in Guatemala. See
Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-72539