Matilde Paz De Rivera; Leonel Rivera v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MATILDE PAZ DE RIVERA; LEONEL
RIVERA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71488
Agency Nos. A200-057-555
A200-057-556
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Matilde Paz de Rivera and Leonel Rivera, natives and citizens of Nicaragua,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-71488 2
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 determination that the Riveras
failed to establish past persecution because their experiences, even considered
cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333
F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003) (past persecution finding not compelled where
petitioner experienced harassment and physical encounters but “never suffered any
significant physical violence”); Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000)
(continuing to live in country for six years without harm or fleeing supported
conclusion that threats were insufficient to compel finding of past persecution);
Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 1998) (history of willingly
returning to home country “militates against a finding of past persecution or a well-
founded fear of future persecution”). As the Riveras have not established past
persecution, they are not entitled to a presumption of future persecution. See
Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002). Finally, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s determination that the Riveras did not show it is
more likely than not they will suffer future persecution. See id. at 1095-96; Loho,
531 F.3d at 1017-18.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --