Raymondo-Diego v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEJANDRO RAYMONDO-DIEGO, No. 07-72625
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-194-955
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Raymondo-Diego, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming
the immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision denying his application for asylum,
*
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).
KAD/Research
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual
findings for substantial evidence, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742
(9th Cir.2008), and we review due process claims de novo, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d
510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ denied Raymondo-Diego’s asylum application as time barred, and
Raymondo-Diego does not challenge this finding.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal
because the difficulties Raymondo-Diego suffered in Guatemala did not rise to the
level of persecution, see Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003),
and the unharmed presence of Raymondo-Diego’s similarly situated family
members undermines his fear of future persecution, see Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d
812, 816-17 (9th Cir. 2001). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding
that Raymondo-Diego failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution
against indigenous people in Guatemala. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049,
1060-62 (9th Cir. 2009).
In is opening brief, Raymondo-Diego fails to challenge the IJ’s
determination that he did not establish eligibility for CAT. See Martinez-Serrano
v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).
KAD/Research 2 07-72625
Finally, Raymondo-Diego’s due process challenge to the BIA’s summary
affirmance is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 848 (9th
Cir. 2003). And, his due process challenge that the IJ failed to analyze the country
reports is contradicted by the record. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915,
921-22 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
KAD/Research 3 07-72625