Derik Yulian COLON-ALVAREZ, aka Derik Julian Colon-Alvarez, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: November 23, 2020
Before: TALLMAN, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Jesse Evans-Schroeder, Attorney, Matthew Harrison Green, Esquire, Attorney, Green Evans-Schroeder, PLLC, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Alexander Jacob Lutz, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Derik Colon-Alvarez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review the agency's “legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citations omitted). Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the petition for review.
1. The agency considered the cumulative effect of the mistreatment Colon-Alvarez experienced. See Chand v. I.N.S., 222 F.3d 1066, 1074 (9th Cir. 2000) (“An applicant may suffer persecution because of the cumulative effect of several incidents, no one of which rises to the level of persecution.”). Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Colon-Alvarez failed to establish that his past experiences in Honduras rose to the level of persecution. See Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating that an applicant who alleges past persecution bears the burden of proving that the treatment rises to the level of persecution).
2. The agency identified and applied the correct standard for establishing future persecution. Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Colon-Alvarez did not establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. I.N.S., 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating that the possibility of a course of events without “specific evidence to suggest” that the events will occur is too speculative to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution); Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1022 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] petitioner's fear of future prosecution is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members living in the petitioner's home country are not harmed.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Thus, Colon-Alvarez's claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail.
3. Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Colon-Alvarez failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Honduras. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (generalized evidence of violence and crime in petitioner's home country was insufficient to meet standard for CAT relief). None of Colon-Alvarez's other arguments have merit.
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.