NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHNATHAN LORENZO BIBIANO, AKA No. 18-72399 Johnathan Lorenzo Viv Iano,

Agency No. A205-907-738

Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Johnathan Lorenzo Bibiano, 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 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 factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the determination that Lorenzo Bibiano failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in Mexico. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Lorenzo Bibiano’s asylum claim fails.

In this case, because Lorenzo Bibiano failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Lorenzo Bibiano failed to show it is more likely than not he will 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).

Lorenzo Bibiano’s motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied. See Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission of certain information from a notice to appear can be cured for jurisdictional purposes by later hearing notice).

2 18-72399

As stated in the court’s November 14, 2018 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 18-72399