FLORES QUINTANILLA v. WILKINSON (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Julio Cesar Flores Quintanilla, 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 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Flores Quintanilla failed to establish past persecution in El Salvador. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone ․ constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA's conclusion that Flores Quintanilla failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Flores Quintanilla's asylum claim fails. Additionally, because Flores Quintanilla did not establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of Flores Quintanilla's CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating standard).

Flores Quintanilla does not challenge the agency's determinations regarding the additional evidence he submitted on appeal. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived).

As stated in the court's March 17, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.