Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Juan Alberto SHAR HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70316

Decided: October 30, 2020

Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Sanjay Sobti, Esquire, Attorney, U.S. Law Center, Corona, CA, for Petitioner Allison Frayer, 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


Juan Alberto Shar Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 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). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Shar Hernandez failed to 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”); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Shar Hernandez's asylum claim fails.

Because Shar Hernandez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case, he 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 Shar Hernandez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if he returned to Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

As stated in the court's April 26, 2016 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.


Copied to clipboard