NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NANCY PATRICIA ROJAS-GUILLEN, No. 19-71702
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-681-922
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Nancy Patricia Rojas-Guillen, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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
*
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).
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm
Rojas-Guillen 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). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Rojas-Guillen 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”).
We do not address Rojas-Guillen’s contentions regarding her credibility, as
the IJ found she was credible. Thus, Rojas-Guillen’s asylum claim fails.
Because Rojas-Guillen 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.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Rojas-Guillen failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or
2 19-71702
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Rojas-Guillen’s contentions concerning
voluntary departure because she did not raise them to the agency. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
claims not presented below).
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 in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 19-71702