NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUBEN AVISAI FLORES RAMIREZ, No. 19-72079
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-908-084
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Ruben Avisai Flores Ramirez, 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
*
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. 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
Flores Ramirez 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). Substantial evidence also
supports the conclusion that Flores Ramirez did not establish a well-founded fear
of future persecution. See id. at 1029 (applicant did not have a well-founded fear
of future persecution where substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding
that he could relocate). Thus, Flores Ramirez’s asylum claim fails.
Because Flores Ramirez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this
case, he did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453
F.3d at 1190.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Flores Ramirez’s CAT
claim because he did not establish that it is more likely than not 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).
2 19-72079
We reject Flores Ramirez’s contentions that the agency failed to consider
evidence, engaged in improper fact finding, or otherwise erred in its analysis as
unsupported by the record.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-72079