Jose Reyes v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS MARTIN REYES, No. 11-73411
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-640-982
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Martin Reyes, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 protection under the Convention Against
*
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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and review de novo claims of due process
violations in immigration proceedings, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535
(9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
Reyes testified that in Guatemala unknown individuals assaulted him during
a university protest and his mother received threats, and Reyes also testified he
fears the Guatemalan government may target him if he returns. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s determination that Reyes failed to meet his burden
of proof for asylum or withholding of removal. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 481-83 (1992) (applicant must provide some evidence, direct or
circumstantial, that the persecutor was or would be motivated by a protected
ground).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Reyes’s CAT
claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured if returned to Guatemala. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th
Cir. 2011).
Finally, we reject Reyes’s contention related to streamlining and his
contention that the BIA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision.
2 11-73411
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due
process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-73411