Eduardo Ramos Guzman v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDUARDO RAMOS GUZMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71726
Agency No. A098-267-324
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 11, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN,*** District
Judge.
Eduardo Ramos Guzman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a)
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable James C. Mahan, United States District Judge for the
District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
FILED
OCT 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-71726
that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and is therefore not
entitled to relief from a reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination for
substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833–36 (9th Cir.
2016).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Guzman failed to
establish that it is more likely than not he would suffer future persecution in
Mexico on account of a protected ground. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083
1094–95 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that “vague threats” do not support withholding
of removal). Any past persecution that Guzman suffered was not on account of a
protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Guzman failed to
demonstrate that he is more likely than not to be tortured in Mexico if he were
deported there. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835–36 (9th Cir. 2011)
(denying CAT claim because fear of torture was speculative).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --