Baramov v. Holder , 383 F. App'x 692 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HRISTO LYUBOMIROV BARAMOV, No. 07-72709
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-824-991
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Hristo Lyubomirov Baramov, a native and citizen of Bulgaria, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
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 de novo due process claims, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971
(9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Baramov failed to
establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account
of a protected ground because he did not demonstrate that his wife’s Roma
ethnicity, or any other protected ground, was a central reason for the problems he
experienced in Bulgaria. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741-42 (9th
Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Baramov’s asylum claim fails.
Because Baramov failed to establish asylum eligibility, it necessarily follows
that he cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Baramov failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned
to Bulgaria. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
Finally, Baramov’s contention that the BIA failed to consider his claims
based on membership in a particular social group is not supported by the record.
In addition, because the record indicates no error by the agency, we reject
2 07-72709
Baramov’s contention that the agency violated his due process rights. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for due process
violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-72709