Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Rosendo RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ, aka Rosendo Ramirez Ramirez, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Rosendo Ramirez-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 withholding of removal. We have 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 Ramirez-Ramirez failed to establish past harm rising to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003) (discrimination and harassment did not rise to the level of persecution); see also He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014) (defining economic persecution as “substantial economic deprivation that interferes with the applicant’s livelihood” and concluding that petitioner failed to establish economic persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Ramirez-Ramirez did not establish that it is more likely than not he will be persecuted in Mexico. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). We reject as unsupported by the record Ramirez-Ramirez’s contention that the agency applied an incorrect legal standard to his claim. Thus, Ramirez-Ramirez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Response sent, thank you
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.
Docket No: No. 19-71013
Decided: April 15, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)