CRISTIAN CARDONA FUENTES V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-73009 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUN 22 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CRISTIAN SAMUEL CARDONA FUENTES, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-73009 Agency No. A200-691-175 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. 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. Cristian Samuel Cardona Fuentes, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm Cardona Fuentes suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. See 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.’”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Cardona Fuentes failed to establish a protected ground would be a central reason for the harm he fears. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009); see also MolinaMorales, 237 F.3d at 1052 (harm based on personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). We reject Cardona Fuentes’s contention that the agency discounted his testimony. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Cardona Fuentes’s withholding of removal claim. 2 14-73009 Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Cardona Fuentes failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by the Guatemalan government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 14-73009
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.
