United States v. 2020-01-13 | 19-70863 | ESTELA ROMERO V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ESTELA ROMERO,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-70863

Agency No. A208-086-175

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 8, 2020
**

Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Estela Romero, a native and citizen of Argentina, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for 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.

*
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 13 2020

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

2 19-70863
Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Romero failed
to establish that her past experiences in Argentina rose to the level of persecution.
See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (“although it
may have been possible for the IJ to conclude that the threats were sufficiently
serious and credible to rise to the level of persecution, we cannot say the evidence
compels the conclusion”); 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.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s determination that Romero failed to establish a clear
probability of future persecution in Argentina. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d
1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future persecution was not objectively
reasonable). Thus, Romero’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Romero failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Argentina. See Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

3 19-70863
We reject Romero’s contention that the agency failed to consider arguments
and evidence, or that the agency failed to address claims. See Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.