EDSEL DEGUZMAN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-70896 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 19 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK EDSEL DEGUZMAN, AKA Edesel Cruz Deguzman, No. 14-70896 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Agency No. A077-975-349 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 7, 2016** Pasadena, California Before: TROTT, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Edsel Deguzman, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of * 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). removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Deguzman failed to establish past 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.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Deguzman did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of persecution too “speculative”). Thus, Deguzman’s asylum claim fails. Because Deguzman failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Finally, Deguzman’s CAT claim also fails because he did not establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured in the Philippines by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. 2 Petition for Review DENIED. 3
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.
