NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN MATIAS-RAMIREZ, AKA Juan No. 14-72290
Macias Ramirez,
Agency No. A079-155-445
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Juan Matias-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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
*
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. Zehatye v. Gonzlaes, 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
Matias-Ramirez suffered in Guatemala did not rise to the level of persecution. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an extreme
concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as
offensive” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); see also Zehatye, 453
F.3d at 1186 (“mere economic disadvantage alone, does not rise to the level of
persecution” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s determination that Matias-Ramirez failed to establish a
well-founded fear of future persecution in Guatemala. See Halim v. Holder, 590
F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner failed to make a compelling showing of
the requisite objective component of a well-founded fear of persecution); Wakkary
v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2009) (record did not compel a finding of
a pattern or practice of persecution). Thus, Matias-Ramirez’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Matias-Ramirez failed to establish eligibility for
asylum, he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye,
2 14-72290
453 F.3d at 1190. Thus, Matias-Ramirez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Matias-Ramirez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Matias-Ramirez’s contention that the agency failed to consider his claim that
he belonged to the social group of “Mam indigenous Guatemalans” is unsupported
by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-72290