JOSE REYES-MATUL V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-71975 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 22 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE MARIA REYES-MATUL, Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-71975 Agency No. A070-039-313 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Jose Maria Reyes-Matul, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under * 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). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Reyes-Matul failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in Guatemala on account of a political opinion or imputed political opinion. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1490-91 (9th Cir. 1997) (record did not compel a finding that persecution occurred “on account of” political beliefs absent sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[petitioner’s] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”) (internal citation omitted). Thus, Reyes-Matul’s asylum claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Reyes-Matul’s CAT claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of any public official if returned to Guatemala. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-71975
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
