NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSALIO LOPEZ FRANCISCO, No. 16-73842

Petitioner, Agency No. A096-045-578

v.

MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2022**

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Rosalio Lopez Francisco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* 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). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 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.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm

Lopez Francisco experienced did not rise to the level of persecution. See Duran-

Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did not compel

finding that harm rises to the level of persecution where perpetrators took no

violent actions against the petitioner or his family beyond threats). Substantial

evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Lopez Francisco did not

establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d

1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present “compelling, objective

evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”). Thus, Lopez

Francisco’s asylum claim fails.

Because Lopez Francisco failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this

case, he did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453

F.3d at 1190.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Lopez Francisco failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by

or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

2 16-73842 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 16-73842