NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAIKELYN MATOS RIVERO, No. 20-71219
Petitioner, Agency No. A203-600-042
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Maikelyn Matos Rivero, a native and citizen of Cuba, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 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
Matos Rivero experienced did not rise to the level of persecution. See Duran-
Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did not compel
finding that harm rises to the level of persecution where perpetrators took no
violent actions against the petitioner or his family beyond threats); Nagoulko v.
INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner did not experience harm
that rises to the level of persecution where she was fired but not prevented from
obtaining other employment); Al-Saher v. INS, 268 F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir 2001)
(five to six days of detention without physical harm did not rise to the level of
persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Matos Rivero
did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. 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”). Thus,
Matos Rivero’s asylum claim fails.
Because Matos Rivero failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case,
she did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d
at 1190.
2 20-71219
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Matos Rivero’s CAT
claim because she did not establish that it is more likely than not she would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if she returned
to Cuba. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (claims of
possible torture speculative).
We reject as unsupported by the record Matos Rivero’s contention that the
BIA failed to consider evidence.
In her opening brief, Matos Rivero does not challenge the BIA’s
determination that the IJ did not violate her right to due process where the record
showed she was able to fully present her case and did not show IJ bias or that
Matos Rivero was denied the assistance of counsel. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder,
706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued
in a party’s opening brief are waived).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise
denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 20-71219