Jorge Cartagena v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 407 F. App'x 100 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                  FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                DEC 22 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JORGE ALBERTO CARTAGENA and                        No. 08-71534
    OLGA LISSETTE CARTAGENA,
    Agency Nos. A073-984-160
    Petitioners,                                     A073-900-202
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted December 14, 2010 **
    Before:       GOODWIN, WALLACE and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    Petitioners Jorge Alberto Cartagena and Olga Lissette Cartagena, husband
    and wife and natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of a Board of
    Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
    (IJ) denial of their application for cancellation of removal, as well as their
    application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    Convention Against Torture (CAT). Our jurisdiction is governed by 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
    Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding
    of removal because Mr. Cartagena failed to show he was or will be subject to
    conduct rising to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 
    319 F.3d 1179
    ,
    1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that unfulfilled threats and an incident of physical
    violence did not establish past persecution). The unfulfilled threats to Mr.
    Cartagena by an unknown source or sources do not compel a finding that he will be
    subject to future persecution if he returns to El Salvador. See INS v. Elias-
    Zacarias, 
    502 U.S. 478
    , 481 n.1 (1992) (explaining that court may not reverse
    Board’s finding unless evidence compels the conclusion that petitioner has a well-
    founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground).
    Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief based on
    the Board’s finding that petitioners did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at
    the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the El Salvadoran
    government. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 
    511 F.3d 940
    , 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).
    As for the denial of cancellation relief, petitioners contend they were denied
    due process when the immigration judge misstated the evidence and speculated
    that a U.S. citizen child is entitled to government benefits. Because the record
    2                                     08-71534
    indicates the IJ considered all evidence in the aggregate, including Mr. Cartagena’s
    testimony regarding the extent of hardship to his son, the IJ’s misstatement as to
    how many weekend days and holidays he spent with the son did not affect the
    outcome of the case. See Colmenar v. INS, 
    210 F.3d 967
    , 971 (9th Cir. 2000). The
    contention that the Board failed to properly consider and weigh all evidence of
    hardship does not raise a colorable due process claim. Martinez-Rosas v.
    Gonzales, 
    424 F.3d 926
    , 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal
    as to the denial of cancellation of removal.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
    3                                   08-71534
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-71534

Citation Numbers: 407 F. App'x 100

Judges: Goodwin, Wallace, Thomas

Filed Date: 12/22/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024