GUILLERMO BARRERA-HERNANDEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72826 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 2 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GUILLERMO WILFREDO BARRERAHERNANDEZ, AKA Guillermo Wilfredo Barrera, AKA Guillermo Borrero, AKA Guillermo Lariosa Hernandez, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-72826 Agency No. A095-024-884 MEMORANDUM* Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 24, 2016** Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Guillermo Wilfredo Barrera-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, * 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). withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Barrera-Hernandez established an exception to the asylum filing deadline to excuse his untimely application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to his asylum claim. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that BarreraHernandez failed to establish past harm rising to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that persecution is “an extreme concept”) (quotation and citation omitted); Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone . . . constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.”) (quotation and citation omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Barrera-Hernandez failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in 2 14-72826 Nicaragua. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). We reject his contentions that the agency ignored evidence or erred in analyzing his claim. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to withholding of removal. Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of BarreraHernandez’s CAT claim because he failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by the government of Nicaragua, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). We reject Barrera-Hernandez’s contentions that the agency’s analysis was insufficient. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA adequately considered the evidence and sufficiently announced its decision). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 14-72826
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.
