EMILIO BUSTAMANTE-MARINOS, AKA Ernicio Bustamante-Mesta v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EMILIO BUSTAMANTE-MARINOS,
AKA Ernicio Bustamante-Mesta,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70958
Agency No. A205-706-400
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Emilio Bustamante-Marinos, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
* 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
APR 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-70958
jurisdiction is governed by 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), and we review de novo due process claims, Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d
1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 2012). We deny petition for review.
Bustamante-Marinos claims past persecution and fears future persecution
over a land dispute based on his family membership. Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s finding that he failed to establish past persecution. See
Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005) (“persecution is an
extreme concept”) (citation and internal quotation omitted). Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s finding that Bustamante-Marinos failed to establish a
well-founded fear of future persecution in Peru. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,
542 F.3d 738, 743-44 (9th Cir. 2008) (family members remaining unharmed
undermined applicant’s well-founded fear of persecution based on family
membership), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d
1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Thus, Bustamante-Marinos’s asylum claim
fails.
Because Bustamante-Marinos failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his
withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-70958
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Bustamante-Marinos’s
CAT claim because he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he
would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a government official if returned
to Peru. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, to the extent Bustamante-Marinos raises a due process argument we
reject it. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and
prejudice to prevail on due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --