Misael Alvarado-Davila v. Eric H. Holder Jr. ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 26 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MISAEL ANTONIO ALVARADO- No. 08-71061
DAVILA, Francisco Javier Fonseca-
Davila, Agency No. A079-043-982
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM *
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2011 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Misael Antonio Alvarado-Davila, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum. We
*
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).
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings and review de novo legal determinations. Husyev v.
Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Alvarado-
Davila did not establish past persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049,
1056 (9th Cir. 2009) (harm to others must be closely tied to petitioner); see also
Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (mere economic
disadvantage or discrimination does not amount to persecution). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Alvarado-Davila does not
have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his family membership
because his siblings, who are similarly situated, live unharmed in Nicaragua. See
Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir. 2008).
To the extent the Alvarado-Davila contends the IJ failed to consider his fear
of persecution on account of political opinion, independent of his social group
claim, the contention is unexhausted. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-
78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Petitioner’s remaining challenges to the denial of his asylum claim are
unavailing. Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
08-71061