United States v. 2020-12-08 | 18-72399 | JOHNATHAN LORENZO BIBIANO V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHNATHAN LORENZO BIBIANO, AKA
Johnathan Lorenzo Viv Iano,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-72399

Agency No. A205-907-738

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 2, 2020
**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Johnathan Lorenzo Bibiano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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”).

*
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 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-72399
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for
substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the determination that Lorenzo Bibiano failed
to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in Mexico. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future
persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Lorenzo Bibiano’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Lorenzo Bibiano failed to establish eligibility for
asylum, he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye,
453 F.3d at 1190.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Lorenzo Bibiano 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 Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Lorenzo Bibiano’s motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied. See
Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission of certain
information from a notice to appear can be cured for jurisdictional purposes by
later hearing notice).

3 18-72399
As stated in the court’s November 14, 2018 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.