Miguel Angel Reyes Sanchez v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL ANGEL REYES SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-73043
Agency No. A215-862-466
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 2, 2021**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: W. FLETCHER, MILLER, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Angel Reyes Sanchez, a native and citizen of Cuba, petitions for
review of the BIA’s decision concluding that he failed to demonstrate his eligibility
for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition
for review.
* 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
FEB 4 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Reyes Sanchez argues the BIA erred in concluding that he failed to establish
an objectively reasonable, well-founded fear of future persecution in Cuba.
“Persecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our
society regards as offensive.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th
Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). An objectively reasonable
fear of persecution “may be established either by the presentation of credible, direct,
and specific evidence in the record of facts that would support a reasonable fear of
persecution, or through a showing by an asylum applicant that he or she has suffered
persecution in the past.” Rusak v. Holder, 734 F.3d 894, 896 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
Whether Reyes Sanchez established an objectively reasonable fear of future
persecution is the only issue presented here,1 and substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s determination that he did not make this showing. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333
F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that the possibility of future persecution
was “too speculative”). In 2016, Reyes Sanchez was detained for attempting to
illegally depart Cuba. After this, he publicly expressed anti-government views and
1 To the extent Reyes Sanchez argues that he proved past persecution, he failed to
raise that issue before the BIA. Thus, we may not consider it. Sola v. Holder, 720
F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (“A petitioner’s failure to raise an
issue before the BIA generally constitutes a failure to exhaust, thus depriving this
court of jurisdiction to consider the issue.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
refused to attend local pro-government meetings. The Cuban government was aware
of his opposition. Nonetheless, three years later, in 2019, he was allowed to legally
depart Cuba. Further, he was never arrested for his statements or actions and
obtained a visa and left the county without incident. Although “it may have been
possible” for the agency to find Reyes Sanchez has an objectively reasonable fear,
based on his testimony regarding government surveillance and vague threats made
against him by local officials, the evidence does not “compel[] [that] conclusion.”
Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1028; see also Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444
F.3d 1168, 1171–72 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that vague and conclusory allegations
regarding threats are insufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.2
2 Reyes Sanchez’s motion for a stay of removal is denied as moot.

-- 3 of 3 --