Wilson Rodrigo Moposita-Laminia and his family, who are natives and citizens of Ecuador, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Their applications were denied by an immigration judge, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed their appeal. The petitioners then sought review in the Ninth Circuit, arguing they faced harm rising to the level of persecution and a risk of torture if returned to Ecuador. The case was submitted for decision without oral argument.
The panel reviewed the agency's factual findings for substantial evidence, a highly deferential standard. The court found that the evidence supported the agency's determination that the petitioners failed to show harm rising to the level of persecution, even when considering past experiences cumulatively. The court cited precedent indicating that discrimination, harassment, and even beatings do not automatically compel a finding of persecution. Regarding future persecution, the court agreed with the agency that the possibility was too speculative to meet the legal standard. Because the petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, the court held they also failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. The court further addressed the Convention Against Torture claim, rejecting the petitioners' contention that the 'substantial grounds for believing' standard should apply. The court clarified that the 'more likely than not' standard governs whenever a petitioner presents evidence establishing substantial grounds for believing they would be in danger of torture. Finally, the court noted that the petitioners had waived review of the IJ's disfavored group and pattern and practice determinations, so those issues were not addressed.
The petition for review is denied, and the motion to stay removal is denied. The BIA's order denying the applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection stands. The decision reinforces the high bar for proving persecution and the strict 'more likely than not' standard for CAT claims in the Ninth Circuit. No remand instructions were issued as the court denied the petition entirely.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download