Juan Alberto Quinonez Tomas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN ALBERTO QUINONEZ TOMAS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70979
Agency No. A202-127-469
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Juan Alberto Quinonez Tomas, 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 application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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
AUG 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-70979
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 the harm
Quinonez Tomas experienced in Guatemala did not rise to the level of persecution.
See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[C]ases with
threats alone, particularly anonymous or vague ones, rarely constitute
persecution.”); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“Persecution . . . is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of
treatment our society regards as offensive.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Quinonez
Tomas 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”); see also Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1029 (applicant did not have
a well-founded fear of future persecution where substantial evidence supported the
agency’s finding that he could relocate).
Thus, Quinonez Tomas’s asylum claim fails.
Because Quinonez Tomas failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-70979
case, he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453
F.3d at 1190.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Quinonez Tomas failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Zheng v. Holder,
644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --