Amilcar Fuentes Aguilar v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMILCAR FRANCISCO FUENTES No. 10-70851
AGUILAR,
Agency Nos. A077-755-286
Petitioner,
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012 **
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Amilcar Francisco Fuentes Aguilar, 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 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo legal determinations.
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Aguilar, who was
never arrested, harmed, or directly threatened with arrest or harm in Guatemala,
failed to establish past persecution. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148,
1153-54 (9th Cir. 2005) (no past persecution where the petitioner was not
physically harmed or detained and only suffered de minimis property damage and
vague threats). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that
Aguilar failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future harm. See Belayneh v.
INS, 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding no well-founded fear of future
persecution where the petitioner suffered a brief detention many years prior to her
asylum application and had since returned to Ethiopia three times without
incident). Accordingly, Aguilar’s asylum claim fails.
Because Aguilar has not established eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
2 10-70851
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Aguilar failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured
if returned to Guatemala. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir.
2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-70851