United States v. 2020-10-30 | 16-70316 | JUAN SHAR HERNANDEZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN ALBERTO SHAR HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-70316

Agency No. A200-158-256

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 26, 2020
**

Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

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

*
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).
FILED

OCT 30 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 16-70316
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.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.