PULI RAMOS PEREZ, AKA Puli Ramos v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PULI RAMOS PEREZ, AKA Puli Ramos,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70830
Agency No. A200-975-033
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 1, 2022**
Before: FRIEDLAND, SANCHEZ, and H. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Puli Ramos Perez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 8 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-70830
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”).1
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 determination that the isolated
encounters Ramos Perez had when he was young did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Because
persecution is an extreme concept, it does not include every sort of treatment our
society regards as offensive.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Duran-
Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (“We have been most
likely to find persecution where threats are repeated, specific and combined with
confrontation or other mistreatment.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Substantial evidence also supports the determination that Ramos Perez does
not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. The few incidents his family
members have faced in Guatemala similarly did not rise to the level of persecution,
and Ramos Perez was able to relocate to Guatemala City and live there without
harm for many years before coming to the United States. See Hussain v. Rosen,
1 Ramos Perez did not appeal the IJ’s denial of asylum and CAT protection to
the BIA. Only his application for withholding of removal is before us in this
petition for review.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-70830
985 F.3d 634, 648 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii) (“An
applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the applicant could
avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of
nationality . . . if under all the circumstances it would be reasonable to expect the
applicant to do so.”)); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An
applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when
similarly situated family members continue to live in the country without incident
. . . .”) (citations omitted), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in
Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --