United States v. 2020-04-15 | 19-71013 | ROSENDO RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSENDO RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ, AKA
Rosendo Ramirez Ramirez,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-71013

Agency No. A201-223-330

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Rosendo Ramirez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

*
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

APR 15 2020

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

2 19-71013
the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th
Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ramirez-
Ramirez failed to establish past harm rising to the level of persecution. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003) (discrimination and
harassment did not rise to the level of persecution); see also He v. Holder, 749
F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014) (defining economic persecution as “substantial
economic deprivation that interferes with the applicant’s livelihood” and
concluding that petitioner failed to establish economic persecution). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Ramirez-Ramirez did not
establish that it is more likely than not he will be persecuted in Mexico. See
Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”).
We reject as unsupported by the record Ramirez-Ramirez’s contention that the
agency applied an incorrect legal standard to his claim. Thus, Ramirez-Ramirez’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.