RICARDO VINCENTE-LOPEZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-73655 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED DEC 19 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICARDO VINCENTE-LOPEZ, a.k.a. Ricardo Vicente Lopez, No. 11-73655 Agency No. A095-788-289 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 17, 2013** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Ricardo Vincente-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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 ). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. ยง 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review. Vincente-Lopez has not challenged the agency s dispositive determination that his asylum claim is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a party s opening brief are waived). Substantial evidence supports the BIA s finding that Vincente-Lopez s experiences with his neighbors in Guatemala, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA s determination Vincente-Lopez failed to establish it is more likely that not his life or freedom would be threatened in Guatemala. See id. at 1018 (possibility of future persecution too speculative); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 74344 (9th Cir. 2008) (continued safety of family in hometown undermined future fear). Consequently, Vicente-Lopez s withholding of removal claim fails. Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA s denial of CAT protection 2 11-73655 because Vincente-Lopez failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 11-73655
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.
