Manuel De Jesus MEJIA-BERMUDEZ, aka Carlos Hernandez-Bermudez, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: October 22, 2019
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Stanley Dale Radtke, Esquire, Attorney, Stanley D. Radtke, Attorney at Law, San Leandro, CA, Jennie Ivette Medina, Attorney, Mira Law Group, A.P.C., Oakland, CA, for Petitioner Enitan Otunla, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Manuel De Jesus Mejia-Bermudez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of withholding of removal for substantial evidence, and we review questions of law de novo. Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018). We deny the petition for review.
We reject Mejia-Bermudez’s contention that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard in considering whether the record as a whole, including evidence of gang threats and extortion, established past persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (relying on all of the surrounding events to decide whether there was persecution). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the past harm Mejia-Bermudez suffered in El Salvador did not rise to the level of persecution. See id. (threats rise to the level of persecution only when they are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm); He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014) (persecution may be established by a substantial economic disadvantage that interferes with the applicant’s livelihood). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Mejia-Bermudez failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable). Thus, Mejia-Bermudez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
The BIA did not err in denying Mejia-Bermudez’s motion to terminate proceedings. 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 the immigration court).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.