Ediberto Alvarez-Lopez v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDIBERTO ALVAREZ-LOPEZ, AKA No. 08-73168
Edilberto Cornelio Alvarez-Lopez,
Agency No. A098-389-712
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2015**
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Ediberto Alvarez-Lopez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection 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 IJ’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049,
1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we review de novo claims of due process violations,
Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Alvarez-Lopez’s past
experiences in Guatemala with gang members did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003) (record
did not compel finding of past persecution); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336,
340 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although a reasonable factfinder could have found [these
incidents constituted] past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder would be
compelled to do so.”) Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that
Alvarez-Lopez failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution.
See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (fear of future harm is too speculative). In light
of these conclusions, we reject Alvarez-Lopez’s due process contention regarding
his political opinion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge). Thus, Alvarez-
Lopez’s asylum claim fails.
2 08-73168
Because Alvarez-Lopez’s failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his
withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, Alvarez-Lopez does not make any specific arguments challenging
the IJ’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed
abandoned).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-73168