Roberto Lucas Lopez v. Pamela Bondi
Opinion
Opinion
facts that would support a reasonable fear of persecution.” Nagoulko v. INS, 333
F.3d 1012, 1015–16 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Aleman-Belloso v. Garland, 121
F.4th 1165, 1173 (9th Cir. 2024). Lucas’s declaration contained neither direct nor
specific evidence supporting a reasonable fear of persecution. Rather, it contained
only broad, conclusory statements about the economic conditions in Guatemala
and general safety concerns facing indigenous Mayan Guatemalans. See Silva v.
Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 718–19 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that “speculative
conclusions” and “vague assertions” contained in petitioner’s declaration were
insufficient to establish prima facie case for asylum and withholding of removal).
3 The record does not compel the conclusion that Lucas established a “reasonable
likelihood” that he is eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. See Fonseca-
Fonseca v. Garland, 76 F.4th 1176, 1179 (9th Cir. 2023).
Nor did Lucas establish a prima facie case for CAT protection. To qualify
for CAT protection, Lucas had to show that it is more likely than not that he will
be tortured if removed to Guatemala. See Aleman-Belloso, 121 F.4th at 1178;