Rodriguez Hernandez v. Garland

facts, although it may have been possible for the IJ to conclude that the threats . . .

[rose] to the level of persecution, we cannot say the evidence compels the

conclusion” that they did). Nor does the allegation that gang members mocked

Rodriguez Hernandez on the way to church compel a conclusion of past

persecution. Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding

substantial evidence supported the finding of no past persecution where petitioner

was “teased, bothered, discriminated against and harassed” on account of their

religion).

Second, the evidence also supports the finding that Rodriguez Hernandez’s

fears of future persecution were not well-founded. He could not explain why gang

members would still want to harm him after he sold his motorcycle, the primary

reason why they targeted him. Because Petitioners did not show persecution for

asylum purposes, Rodriguez Hernandez “necessarily fails to satisfy the more

demanding standard for withholding of removal, which involves showing by a

‘clear probability’ that the petitioner’s life or freedom would be threatened in the

proposed country of removal.” Davila, 968 F.3d at 1142; see also 8 U.S.C.

§…