NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 3 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIA GASPAR-MIGUEL, No. 21-70502
Petitioner, Agency No. A213-130-220
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 30, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: M. SMITH and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and RODRIGUEZ,*** District
Judge.
Julia Gaspar-Miguel, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal from 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).
***
The Honorable Xavier Rodriguez, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and Convention Against Torture protection (“CAT”). The agency
dismissed her appeal because, among other reasons, the “threats and recruitment
attempts experienced” by Petitioner do not rise to the level of persecution, and
Petitioner did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. As the
parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.
We review the denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT protection for
substantial evidence. Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022).
Under this standard, the agency’s action should be upheld “unless any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. (citation
omitted). Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision citing Matter of Burbano, 20
I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994) and provided its own analysis, we review both
the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 2020).
1. To qualify for asylum, Petitioner must show past persecution or a
well-founded fear of future persecution. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025,
1028 (9th Cir. 2019). Persecution is an “extreme concept that does not include
every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” Id.
Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision that the verbal threats
and harassment Petitioner experienced do not amount to persecution. The gang
2
approached Petitioner at least five times to recruit her to sell drugs and prostitute
herself, and threatened to kill her and her family if she reported the incidents to the
police or left the area. However, the gang members never physically harmed
Petitioner or any of her family or friends, including her family that remains in
Guatemala. Thus, we cannot say that any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude that Petitioner suffered persecution. See id. at 1026-28
(holding that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination of no past
persecution where the petitioner was threatened by armed cartel members but was
not harmed).
Assuming the argument is not forfeited, the record similarly does not compel
a conclusion contrary to the IJ’s decision that Petitioner did not show a well-
founded fear of future persecution. “An applicant does not have a well-founded
fear of persecution if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another
part of the applicant's country of nationality . . . if . . . it would be reasonable to
expect the applicant to do so.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii). Petitioner’s sister,
who was similarly harassed by the same gang, has not been targeted since she
moved to another part of the country. Thus, the IJ’s finding that Petitioner can
reasonably relocate to another part of Guatemala and that she is therefore ineligible
for asylum is supported by substantial evidence.
3
2. To be eligible for withholding of removal in the absence of past
persecution, Petitioner must show that she is “more likely than not” to be
persecuted upon removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2). Because Petitioner does not
show a well-founded fear of future persecution—a lower standard than more likely
than not—she necessarily fails to show eligibility for withholding of removal. See
Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1029.
3. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s holding that Petitioner
is not eligible for CAT protection. Petitioner did not show that she is more likely
than not to be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of public officials. See
Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION DENIED.
4