Nayeli Martinez Aguilar; v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NAYELI MARTINEZ AGUILAR; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72697
Agency Nos. A206-913-703
A206-913-704
A206-913-705
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Nayeli Martinez Aguilar and her two children, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
* 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
DEC 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-72697
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755
F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners’ past
harm in Mexico did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez
v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (“although it may have been possible
for the IJ to conclude that the threats were sufficiently serious and credible to rise
to the level of persecution, we cannot say the evidence compels the conclusion”).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that petitioners did
not 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”). Thus, petitioners’
asylum claim fails.
In this case, because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Aguilar failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject Aguilar’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-72697
contention that the IJ erred in conducting the CAT analysis.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --