Santana De Jesus Mejia v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANTANA DE JESUS MEJIA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72369
Agency No. A200-006-404
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Santana de Jesus Mejia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 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).
FILED
MAR 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 11-72369
the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.
2008), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mejia did not
demonstrate he suffered past persecution in Guatemala. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333
F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003) (record did not compel the finding that
petitioner suffered past persecution, particularly where petitioner did not suffer any
significant physical harm); 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.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s determination that Mejia failed to demonstrate it is more
likely than not he would be harmed if returned to Guatemala. See Nagoulko, 333
F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Mejia’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --