Hernandez, et al v. Holder, No. 07-74986 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARACELI HERNANDEZ; et al., Petitioners, No. 07-74986 Agency Nos. A096-385-884 A096-385-880 A096-385-881 A096-385-883 v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. MEMORANDUM * On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 16, 2010 ** Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Araceli Hernandez and three of her sons, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals orders dismissing their appeals from the immigration judge s ( IJ ) decisions denying their applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). ( CAT ). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that the threats petitioners received from police after they sought to file a complaint against a police officer amounted to persecution or demonstrated a clear probability of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-38 (9th Cir. 2000) (unfulfilled threats, without more, generally do not constitute persecution); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 658 (9th Cir. 2007) (threats alone did not demonstrate a clear probability of persecution). Accordingly, petitioners withholding of removal claims fail. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). We lack jurisdiction to review any assertion by Hernandez s son, Raymundo San Augustin-Hernandez, that he is eligible for CAT relief, because he specifically declined to apply for that relief before the IJ. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence supports the IJ s denial of CAT relief to the remaining petitioners because they failed to establish it is more likely 2 07-74986 than not that they will be tortured if returned to Mexico. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 07-74986
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.
