Jose Amilcar Chim Coyoy v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE AMILCAR CHIM COYOY,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71744
Agency No. A070-451-872
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jose Amilcar Chim Coyoy, 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
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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
NOV 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-71744
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.
2008). We deny the petition for review.
Chim Coyoy does not claim past persecution in Guatemala. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s finding that Chim Coyoy failed to establish it was
more likely than not that he would be persecuted if returned to Guatemala. See
Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir.1998) (“petitioner cannot simply prove
that there exists a generalized or random possibility of persecution[;] he must show
that he is at particular risk[.]”) (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citation
omitted); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)
(concluding fear was “not objectively reasonable under the circumstances of this
case”). We reject Chim Coyoy’s contentions that the agency decisions were
insufficient and failed to adequately review the evidence. Thus, Chim Coyoy’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Chim Coyoy failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Guatemala if returned. See
Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --