HUGO AVILA-HERNANDEZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 13-70079 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED DEC 4 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HUGO CESAR AVILA-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, No. 13-70079 Agency No. A087-595-478 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 18, 2014** Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Hugo Cesar Avila-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for * 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). 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. Avila-Hernandez contends his mother’s abusive ex-boyfriend will persecute him if he returns to Mexico. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Avila-Hernandez did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of persecution was “too speculative”). We reject Avila-Hernandez’s contention that the agency did not consider the entire record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome presumption agency reviewed record). In light of our conclusion, we do not reach Avila-Hernandez’s contentions regarding the agency’s time-bar finding. Thus, his asylum claim fails. Because Avila-Hernandez failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-70079

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.