Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bernabe Gonzalez Mejia; et al v. Eric H. Holder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


January 20, 2011

BERNABE GONZALEZ MEJIA; ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, RESPONDENT.

Agency Nos. A075-479-311 A075-479-312 A075-479-313 A075-479-314 On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 10, 2011*fn1

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

MEMORANDUM*fn2

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Bernabe Gonzalez Mejia and his family, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ's finding that petitioners failed to demonstrate the incidents that happened in Guatemala were on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (to reverse the agency's decision "we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it") (emphasis in original). Thus, contrary to petitioners' assertion, they are not entitled to a presumption of future fear because they failed to establish past persecution on account of a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). Further, the record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481 n.1; Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018. Accordingly, petitioners' asylum claim fails.

Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.