CASIMIRO GUZMAN, AKA Romeo Maldonado v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CASIMIRO GUZMAN, AKA Romeo
Maldonado,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73743
Agency No. A088-892-267
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 9, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: HURWITZ and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN,*** District
Judge.
Casimiro Guzman a/k/a Romeo Maldonado (Guzman), a native and citizen of
Mexico, seeks review of a November 13, 2015 decision from the Board of
* 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 Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of
Minnesota, sitting by designation.
FILED
FEB 11 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Immigration Appeals (BIA) that denied his application for withholding of removal
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We deny the petition
for review.
We have jurisdiction over Guzman’s claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and
review the agency’s denial of withholding of removal for substantial evidence. Guo
v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018) (“We review denials
of … withholding of removal … for substantial evidence and will uphold a denial
supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Guzman
failed to show he experienced any harm rising to the level of persecution. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992)). Guzman’s testimony that his family
received threats from a civic group that rivaled one his brother had joined, does not,
without more, establish that he experienced any harm rising to the level of
persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019);
Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone … constitute
past persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so
1 Because Guzman did not raise any argument before this court with respect to the
denial of his CAT claim, it is waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.”) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). As Guzman has not established that he experienced
any past harm rising to the level of persecution, he is not entitled to a rebuttable
presumption of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(b)(1)(i)–(ii). And
Guzman’s testimony that neither he nor his family, who continue to reside in the
same town in Mexico, have experienced any harm undermines the probability of any
future persecution. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743–44 (9th Cir.
2008), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081
(9th Cir. 2013) (en banc).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --