JUAN DE DIOS OLEA PALMA, AKA Juan Olea-Palma, AKA Juan De Dios Olea-Palma, AKA Juan… v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN DE DIOS OLEA PALMA, AKA Juan
Olea-Palma, AKA Juan De Dios Olea-Palma,
AKA Juan Palma,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70824
Agency No. A205-716-433
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Juan De Dios Olea Palma, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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
* 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
MAR 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-70824
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th
Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Olea Palma
failed to show he could not safely relocate within Mexico, or that it would be
unreasonable for him to do so, and thus did not establish a well-founded fear of
future persecution. See Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 648 (9th Cir. 2021)
(“‘[a]n applicant does not have a well-founded fear of [future] persecution if the
applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s
country,’ unless doing so would be unreasonable under the applicant’s
circumstances.” (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii))); see also 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(3)(i). Thus, Olea Palma’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Olea Palma failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
We reject as unsupported by the record Olea Palma’s contentions that the
agency ignored evidence.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-70824
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --