NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAZMIN ROSMERY BARAHONA- No. 16-73808
MARTINEZ; et al.,
Agency Nos. A208-163-394
Petitioners, A208-163-395
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jazmin Rosmery Barahona-Martinez and her son, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence.
Dai v. Sessions, 884 F.3d 858, 866 (9th Cir. 2018). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the harassment
and threats Barahona-Martinez experienced from gang members did not rise to the
level of past persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th
Cir. 2019) (threats alone “rarely constitute persecution”); Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929,
936 (9th Cir. 2000) (threats do not rise to the level of persecution unless they are
“so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm”). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Barahona-Martinez did not
establish a well-founded fear of persecution because she failed to show that she
could not safely relocate to another part of El Salvador or that it would be
unreasonable to expect her to do so. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(2)(ii) (asylum),
1208.16(b)(2) (withholding of removal); Kaiser v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 653, 659 (9th
Cir. 2004) (burden of proof is on applicant if she has not established past
persecution). Thus, Barahona-Martinez’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail.
We reject petitioners’ contention that the immigration court lacked
jurisdiction over their case. See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62
(9th Cir. 2019) (initial notice to appear need not include time and date information
2 16-73808
to vest jurisdiction in immigration court).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-73808