NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OMAR CRUZ-VILLASENOR, No. 18-71989
Petitioner, Agency No. A213-043-938
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Omar Cruz-Villasenor, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
*
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).
agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cruz-
Villasenor failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in Mexico.
See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to
present “compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of
persecution”); see also Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th Cir.
2011) (in the absence of past persecution, the burden is on the applicant to show
that relocation would be unreasonable). Thus, Cruz-Villasenor’s asylum claim
fails.
In this case, because Cruz-Villasenor failed to establish eligibility for
asylum, he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Cruz-Villasenor failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 18-71989