Parra

Parra v. Ashcroft

Good Law
107 F. App'x 113
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 18, 2004Nos. 03-71629California297 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Leonardo Torio Parra and Mercedes Estipona Parra, husband and wife, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) decision affirming the immigration judge’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. 1 The BIA concluded that even if it deemed Mr. Parra’s testimony credible, he had not shown that he was persecuted or that he had a well-founded fear of persecution based on a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(42)(A). We deny the petition.

The BIA correctly concluded that the threats and stone-throwing incidents the Parras endured did not amount to past persecution and did not give rise to a well-founded fear of future persecution based on one of the five protected grounds. The *114 threats and incidents Mr. Parra described were not so serious that they constitute persecution. Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003) (finding that unfulfilled threats amounted to “harassment rather than persecution”); Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (9th Cir.2000) (finding that mail and telephone threats did not compel a finding of past persecution). Moreover, they were not so serious that any reasonable factfinder would be compelled to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.