Edith Rossana Ramirez- Sagastume 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
EDITH ROSSANA RAMIREZ-
SAGASTUME,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71310
Agency No. A072-509-545
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges
Edith Rossana Ramirez-Sagastume, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her
appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for
FILED
JUL 27 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-71310
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo its legal conclusions.
Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the
petition for review.
Ramirez-Sagastume testified that an unidentified man approached her on
three occasions, told her to stop her political activities, and threatened her with
death on at least one of these occasions. Based on these incidents, substantial
evidence supports the IJ’s finding that petitioner has not established past
persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing
alone...constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when
the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.”)
(internal quotations omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
finding that Ramirez-Sagastume failed to establish a well-founded fear of
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility
of future persecution too speculative). Therefore, Ramirez-Sagastume’s asylum
claims fails.

-- 2 of 3 --

10-71310
Because Ramirez-Sagastume failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she
necessarily fails to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Lastly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Ramirez-
Sagastume has not established that she faces a risk of torture if she returns
Guatemala. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747-48. Accordingly, Ramirez-
Sagastume’s CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --