Francis Jeovanny Diaz-Guevara; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCIS JEOVANNY DIAZ-GUEVARA;
et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71111
Agency Nos. A202-076-287
A202-076-288
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Francis Jeovanny Diaz-Guevara and his minor daughter, natives and citizens
of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying their application for asylum, and denying Diaz-Guevara’s applications for
* 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
JUL 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-71111
withholding of removal, and relief 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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm
Diaz-Guevara experienced in El Salvador, even considered cumulatively, did not
rise to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th
Cir. 2003) (“Persecution . . . is an extreme concept that does not include every sort
of treatment our society regards as offensive.” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination
that Diaz-Guevara failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future
persecution in El Salvador. See id. at 1018 (possibility of future persecution “too
speculative”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because Diaz-Guevara failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case,
he did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Diaz-Guevara failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-71111
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --