WALFRED ROLANDO LOPEZ LOPEZ, AKA Walfred Lopez, AKA Julio Varias- Salazar v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALFRED ROLANDO LOPEZ LOPEZ,
AKA Walfred Lopez, AKA Julio Varias-
Salazar,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71409
Agency No. A205-528-124
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 9, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON, BENNETT, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Walfred Rolando Lopez Lopez (Lopez), a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
dismissing the appeal of the denials of his requests for withholding of removal and
FILED
SEP 20 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 4 --

relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252, and review the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence.
See Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014), as amended. We deny the
petition.
1. A petitioner may demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal
by: (1) establishing past persecution on a protected ground, or (2) demonstrating
“that it is more likely than not that he would be subject to” future persecution on a
protected ground. Viridiana v. Holder, 646 F.3d 1230, 1239 (9th Cir. 2011)
(citation omitted). A petitioner may establish an objectively reasonable fear of
future persecution if: (1) a reasonable possibility exists that he will suffer an
individualized risk of persecution, or (2) a pattern or practice of persecution exists
against the protected group to which he belongs. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009). The government, or forces the government is
unwilling or unable to control, must inflict the persecution. See id. at 1061.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Lopez failed to
meet this standard. Lopez testified that he suffered physical abuse, harassment,
and discrimination from classmates in lower school and college, but this treatment
did not rise to the level of persecution. See Rusak v. Holder, 734 F.3d 894, 896
(9th Cir. 2013) (describing persecution as “an extreme concept” not met by ill
2

-- 2 of 4 --

treatment from classmates and teachers). Similarly, Lopez failed to establish that
he would more likely than not suffer individual persecution, or a systemic pattern
or practice of persecution by the government, or forces the government is
unwilling or unable to control, exists against his asserted protected group. See
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060-61.
2. Substantial evidence also supports denial of the CAT claim. For CAT
relief, a petitioner must establish that he will more likely than not be tortured if
removed. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014), as
amended. Lopez relied on the same testimony of physical abuse, humiliation, and
discrimination to support his CAT claim. These allegations did not rise to the level
of torture. See id. (noting that torture is an “extreme form of cruel and inhuman
treatment”).
3. To the extent Lopez’s equal protection claim was exhausted, it fails on
the merits. The immigration judge and the Board treated him no differently than
similarly situated individuals. See Lopez v. Sessions, 901 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir.
2018).
4. Finally, assuming without deciding that Lopez exhausted his claim
that the Board misidentified his asserted social groups, Lopez failed to establish
that his asserted social group of “indigent, indigenous individual[s] with a visible
3

-- 3 of 4 --

disability” was sufficiently particular and socially distinct in Guatemalan society.
See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 2016).
PETITION DENIED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --