Opinion
No. 16-71726
10-20-2017
EDUARDO RAMOS GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A098-267-324 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 11, 2017 San Francisco, California Before: O'SCANNLAIN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN, District Judge.
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 James C. Mahan, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. --------
Eduardo Ramos Guzman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an immigration judge's ("IJ") determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and is therefore not entitled to relief from a reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ's negative reasonable fear determination for substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833-36 (9th Cir. 2016).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's conclusion that Guzman failed to establish that it is more likely than not he would suffer future persecution in Mexico on account of a protected ground. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that "vague threats" do not support withholding of removal). Any past persecution that Guzman suffered was not on account of a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ's conclusion that Guzman failed to demonstrate that he is more likely than not to be tortured in Mexico if he were deported there. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (denying CAT claim because fear of torture was speculative).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.