Jesus Adrian Lopez-Mercardo v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS ADRIAN LOPEZ-MERCARDO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73669
Agency No. A013-605-267
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Adrian Lopez-Mercardo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
* 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
JAN 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-73669
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Lopez-Mercardo testified he had never been harmed in Mexico, but fears
harm from unidentified people if he returns. Substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s conclusions that Lopez-Mercardo failed to establish a well-founded fear of
future persecution or that it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted on
account of a protected ground. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir.
2003) (fear not objectively reasonable where it was too speculative); see also INS
v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984) (explaining the difference between the asylum
and withholding of removal standards.) Thus, Lopez-Mercardo’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Lopez-Mercardo failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See
Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011) (fear of future torture
speculative); Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence
did not indicate a particularized threat of torture to petitioner).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --