Araceli Hernandez; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ARACELI HERNANDEZ; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74986
Agency Nos. A096-385-884
A096-385-880
A096-385-881
A096-385-883
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Araceli Hernandez and three of her sons, natives and citizens of Mexico,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ orders dismissing their
appeals from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decisions denying their applications
for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
NOV 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-74986 2
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and
we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that the threats petitioners
received from police after they sought to file a complaint against a police officer
amounted to persecution or demonstrated a clear probability of persecution. See
Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-38 (9th Cir. 2000) (unfulfilled threats, without
more, generally do not constitute persecution); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d
646, 658 (9th Cir. 2007) (threats alone did not demonstrate a clear probability of
persecution). Accordingly, petitioners’ withholding of removal claims fail. See 8
U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3).
We lack jurisdiction to review any assertion by Hernandez’s son, Raymundo
San Augustin-Hernandez, that he is eligible for CAT relief, because he specifically
declined to apply for that relief before the IJ. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT
relief to the remaining petitioners because they failed to establish it is more likely

-- 2 of 3 --

07-74986 3
than not that they will be tortured if returned to Mexico. See Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --