Jose Lino Pena-Chavez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LINO PENA-CHAVEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73345
Agency No. A095-663-004
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Lino Pena-Chavez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
MAR 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-73345 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110,
1111 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Pena-Chavez
failed to demonstrate his experiences in Nicaragua rose to the level of persecution.
See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (death threats did not compel
finding of past persecution). Absent a showing of past persecution, Pena-Chavez
does not have a rebuttable presumption of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.13(b)(1). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Pena-
Chavez failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future
persecution too speculative). Consequently, his asylum claim fails.
Because Pena-Chavez did not establish his eligibility for asylum, it follows
that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Rostomian v. INS, 210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir. 2000).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection
because Pena-Chavez failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be

-- 2 of 3 --

10-73345 3
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Nicaraguan government.
See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --