ROJAS GUILLEN v. GARLAND (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Nancy Patricia Rojas-Guillen, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that the harm Rojas-Guillen experienced did not rise to the level of persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did not compel finding that harm rises to the level of persecution where perpetrators took no violent actions against the petitioner or his family beyond threats). Substantial evidence also supports the agency's finding that Rojas-Guillen did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present “compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”).

We do not address Rojas-Guillen's contentions regarding her credibility, as the IJ found she was credible. Thus, Rojas-Guillen's asylum claim fails.

Because Rojas-Guillen failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case, she did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Rojas-Guillen failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Rojas-Guillen's contentions concerning voluntary departure because she did not raise them to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented below).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.