Deris Herrera-Machado v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DERIS HERRERA-MACHADO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73373
Agency No. A098-653-360
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Deris Herrera-Machado, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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
MAR 15 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-73373
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009)
and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the harms
Herrera-Machado suffered in Honduras as a gay man did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner
who was teased, bothered, discriminated against, harassed, and never physically
harmed failed to establish harm rising to the level of persecution). Thus, Herrera-
Machado was not entitled to a rebuttable presumption of future persecution. See
Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002). Herrera-Machado
does not otherwise challenge the agency’s determination that he failed to establish
it is more likely than not he would be persecuted if returned. Thus, we deny the
petition for review as to Herrera-Machado’s withholding of removal claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Herrera-Machado failed to show it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Honduran government. See
Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --