Jose Estrada-Sanchez, a.k.a. Jose Tomas Estrada Cuellar v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ESTRADA-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Jose
Tomas Estrada Cuellar,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72658
Agency No. A072-876-947
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 7, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: NGUYEN and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and BOUGH,*** District
Judge.
Jose Estrada-Sanchez (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Guatemala,
* 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).
*** The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. §1252. We review the BIA’s determinations for substantial evidence.
Diaz-Jimenez v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 955, 958 (9th Cir. 2018). We deny the petition
for review.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Petitioner did not
demonstrate his single beating amounted to past persecution, an extreme concept
usually characterized as severe and sustained. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336,
339–40 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although a reasonable factfinder could have found this
incident sufficient to establish past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder
would be compelled to do so.”).
2. Petitioner did not have any further encounters with the kidnappers who
assaulted him, presented no evidence that anyone came looking for him, and has
not received any more threats since that day in 1982. In Gu v. Gonzales, we
upheld the denial of asylum even though the applicant was abducted by the police,
held in detention for three days, beaten severely, including with weapons, and only
released upon certain assurances and payment. 454 F.3d 1014, 1017–18, 1021 (9th
Cir. 2006). In this case, the evidence does not show that Petitioner sustained any
harm. The encounter in which he was beat and kidnapped was brief, the Petitioner
was not held and interrogated, and the record does not provide specific details of

-- 2 of 3 --

3
further threats. Cf. Aguilera-Cota v. INS, 914 F.2d 1375, 1379 (9th Cir. 1990)
(“Where the evidence [of a threat] is not available, the applicant’s testimony will
suffice if it is credible, persuasive, and specific.”). The record does not compel the
conclusion that Petitioner has shown past persecution.1
3. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Petitioner did not
show it more likely than not that he would be tortured upon return to Guatemala
because the evidence presented by Petitioner was too speculative. See Nuru v.
Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2017).
The civil war in Guatemala ended more than two decades ago, multiple military
officials who committed human rights crimes were brought to justice, and
Petitioner has offered no evidence that he has been threatened since leaving the
country 40 years ago.
PETITION DENIED.
1 Petitioner does not argue that he has shown future persecution.

-- 3 of 3 --