United States v. 2013-06-25 | 08-74130 | Veronica Rubi Chuy Torres V. Eric H. Holder Jr. |…

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral**
argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Sarah S. Vance, Chief United States District Judge for the***
Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VERONICA RUBI CHUY TORRES, ) No. 08-74130
)
Petitioner, ) Agency No. A099-358-034
)
v. ) MEMORANDUM*
)
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney )
General, )
)
Respondent. )
)
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 11, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and VANCE,***
District Judge.
Veronica Rubi Chuy Torres, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for
FILED
JUN 25 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

8 U.S.C. § 1158.1
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3).2
United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or3
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No.
100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, implemented at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18.
2
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of her applications for
asylum, withholding and removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief.1 2 3
We deny the petition.
The BIA’s determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum must be
upheld if “‘supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the
record considered as a whole.’” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.
Ct. 812, 815, 117 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1992). “It can be reversed only if the evidence
presented . . . was such that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the
requisite fear of persecution existed.” Id.; see also Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). When an alien seeks to overturn the BIA’s adverse
determination, “he must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling
that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.”
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483–84, 112 S. Ct. at 817. When an asylum claim is
involved, an alien must show either past persecution or a well-founded fear of
future persecution that is “subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.”

-- 2 of 4 --

See Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1192 (9th Cir. 2007); Molina-4
Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051–52 (9th Cir. 2001); Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d
646, 655–57 (9th Cir. 2000); Fisher, 79 F.3d at 962–63.
See Fedunyak v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 1126, 1129 (9th Cir. 2007);5
Mamouzian v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 1129, 1134–35 (9th Cir. 2004); Grava v. INS,
205 F.3d 1177, 1179, 1181 (9th Cir. 2000).
3
Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 960 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc); see also Gu v. Gonzales,
454 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2006).
Chuy does not meet her heavy burden. All of her claims rest on her
assertion that she was subjected to past persecution on account of her political
opinion. However, we have reviewed the record and are satisfied that the evidence
does not compel conclusions contrary to those reached by the BIA. See Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481 n.1, 112 S. Ct. at 815 n.1; Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555
F.3d 734, 739–40 (9th Cir. 2009). Rather, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination that the harm that befell Chuy: (a) was not on account of her
political opinion, but was on account of personal aberrational conduct by her
assailant; and (b) was not due to whistle-blowing activity regarding governmental4
corruption.5
Because Chuy did not meet her burden regarding asylum, she necessarily
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Liu v. Holder, 640
F.3d 918, 926 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011); Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
1995).
Finally, the evidence in the record does not compel a determination that it is
more likely than not that Chuy would be tortured in Peru. Thus, she is not entitled
to CAT relief. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009);
Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922–23 (9th Cir. 2006); Singh v. Gonzales,
439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006).
Petition DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --