Francisco Pasqual v. Blanche

── Francisco Pasqual v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARCOS SEBASTIAN FRANCISCO No. 25-2866 PASQUAL; M. B. P. R., Agency Nos. A220-505-637 Petitioners, A220-505-638 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 18, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: LEE, BUMATAY, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Marcos Sebastian Francisco-Pasqual and his minor child, natives and citizens of Guatemala, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of their applications for asylum, * 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). withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. When reviewing final orders of the BIA, we review the agency’s findings of fact for substantial evidence. Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022). Under this standard, the agency’s factual findings are considered “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. (emphasis omitted). We review questions of law de novo. Id. 1. The agency did not err in finding that Francisco-Pasqual is not eligible for asylum because he has not established past persecution or an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in Guatemala. “To be eligible for asylum, a petitioner has the burden to demonstrate a likelihood of ‘persecution or a well- founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). Here, the record supports the agency’s conclusion that Francisco-Pasqual failed to establish that he experienced past persecution. The extent of the mistreatment Francisco-Pasqual claims to have endured in Guatemala largely 1 Francisco-Pasqual served as the lead applicant before the agency with his minor child serving as a derivative beneficiary. The minor child filed a separate asylum application; however, it was based on the same factual predicate as Francisco- Pasqual’s application. Accordingly, references to Petitioners’ claim will focus on the lead petitioner, Francisco-Pasqual. 2 25-2866 consists of threatening incidents involving the family of Francisco Bernabe, an individual infatuated with Francisco-Pasqual’s girlfriend and who would verbally abuse Francisco-Pasqual. Although the Bernabe family threatened to kill Francisco- Pasqual and chased him twice to hurt him, Francisco-Pasqual testified that they “didn’t do anything to [him].” “[T]hreats themselves are sometimes hollow and, while uniformly unpleasant, often do not effect significant actual suffering or harm.” Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1062 (quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that these incidents do not r