MARIO JOSE TALAVERA CHAVARRIA, AKA Enrique Alvarado, AKA Mario Jose Talavera v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO JOSE TALAVERA
CHAVARRIA, AKA Enrique Alvarado,
AKA Mario Jose Talavera,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72567
Agency No. A094-286-268
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Mario Jose Talavera Chavarria, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and
FILED
DEC 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for substantial evidence 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 conclusion that, even if Talavera
Chavarria’s asylum claim was timely, his past experiences, including threats,
overnight incarceration, and harm to his family, did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (evidence of
repeated threats did not compel a finding of past persecution); see also Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner did not establish past
persecution where he experienced only discriminatory mistreatment and did not
show harm to others was “closely tied” to him). We reject any contention that the
agency did not consider these incidents cumulatively. Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s determination that Talavera Chavarria did not establish a
well-founded fear of future persecution because he did not show it would be
unreasonable for him to relocate within Nicaragua. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(2)(ii); see also Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th
Cir. 2011) (petitioner failed to meet her burden of establishing it would be
unreasonable for her to relocate). Thus, we deny the petition as to Talavera
Chavarria’s asylum claim.
13-72567 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Because Talavera Chavarria did not establish eligibility for asylum, his
withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-72567 3

-- 3 of 3 --