BARAHONA MARTINEZ v. BARR (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Jazmin Rosmery Barahona-Martinez and her son, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Dai v. Sessions, 884 F.3d 858, 866 (9th Cir. 2018). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the harassment and threats Barahona-Martinez experienced from gang members did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (threats alone “rarely constitute persecution”); Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (threats do not rise to the level of persecution unless they are “so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Barahona-Martinez did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution because she failed to show that she could not safely relocate to another part of El Salvador or that it would be unreasonable to expect her to do so. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(2)(ii) (asylum), 1208.16(b)(2) (withholding of removal); Kaiser v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 653, 659 (9th Cir. 2004) (burden of proof is on applicant if she has not established past persecution). Thus, Barahona-Martinez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

We reject petitioners’ contention that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over their case. See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (initial notice to appear need not include time and date information to vest jurisdiction in immigration court).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.