Hugo Rene Mayen Dubon v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUGO RENE MAYEN DUBON,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71738
Agency No. A096-395-027
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 2, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, KOH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Hugo Rene Mayen Dubon, 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 applications 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 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 9 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-71738
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 Mayen Dubon
failed to establish past persecution based upon the threats he received in
Guatemala. See 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 marks omitted).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Mayen
Dubon failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution by political
opponents or children of ex-guerillas. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185
(9th Cir. 2003) (to qualify for withholding of removal a petitioner must show that it
is more probable than not that he would suffer future persecution); Nagoulko v.
INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too
speculative”). Thus, Mayen Dubon’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Mayen Dubon does not make any arguments challenging the agency’s denial
of CAT protection. See Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1125 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015)
(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-71738
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --