Beronica Del Carmen Lopez- Revolorio; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BERONICA DEL CARMEN LOPEZ-
REVOLORIO; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-671
Agency Nos.
A212-901-228
A212-901-229
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Beronica Del Carmen Lopez-Revolorio and her daughter, natives and
citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
* 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
AUG 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-671
denying their application for asylum, and denying Lopez-Revolorio’s applications
for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,
1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
We do not disturb the agency’s determination that Lopez-Revolorio failed to
establish she suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See
Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant who
alleges past persecution has the burden of proving that the treatment rises to the
level of persecution); see also Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2
(9th Cir. 2022) (court need not resolve whether de novo or substantial evidence
review applies, where result would be the same under either standard). Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lopez-Revolorio failed to
establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in Guatemala. See
Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present
“compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of
persecution”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because Lopez-Revolorio failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she failed
to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Villegas Sanchez v.
Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1183 (9th Cir. 2021). Thus, Lopez-Revolorio’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-671
withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Lopez-Revolorio’s
request for CAT protection because she failed to show it is more likely than not she
will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject Lopez-Revolorio’s contention as to the applicability of a lower standard
of proof for CAT protection.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --