Orellana-Orellana v. Holder , 359 F. App'x 895 ( 2009 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL ORELLANA-ORELLANA, No. 07-71693
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-179-915
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Raul Orellana-Orellana, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008); Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962
(9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Orellana-
Orellana failed to establish that he was persecuted on account of a protected
ground, because the death of his father and the unidentified telephonic threats he
received directing him not to investigate the death are insufficient, without more, to
demonstrate that the perpetrators were motivated by a political opinion. See INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481–83 (1992); Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1070. In
addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that those incidents
were not committed by the government or forces the government was unwilling or
unable to control. See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 655–56 (9th Cir. 2000).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Orellana-
Orellana’s fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable in light of the
fact that he remained in Guatemala for six to eight months without harm or further
threat following his father’s death, and that his similarly situated family members
have remained in Guatemala unmolested since that same time. See Hakeem v. INS,
2
273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001).
Because Orellana-Orellana failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, the
agency properly concluded that he was ineligible for withholding of removal. See
Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000). Furthermore,
substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Orellana-
Orellana’s unsubstantiated testimony that he “fear[s] for [his] life” if he were to
return to Guatemala, falls far short of establishing that it is “more likely than not”
he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a government official
upon return. See Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (per
curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3