Yoni Sandoval-Menendez v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YONI ELIERSER SANDOVAL- No. 08-72324
MENENDEZ, CESI PAOLA
SANDOVAL-MENENDEZ, Agency Nos. A098-652-288
A098-652-287
Petitioners,
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.
Yoni Elierser Sandoval-Menendez and Cesi Paola Sandoval-Menendez,
natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
*
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).
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, Hoxha
v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 n.4 (9th Cir. 2003), and 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 BIA’s conclusion that the three instances
when gang members robbed and threatened the petitioners do not rise to the level
of past persecution. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004);
Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2006). Further, the record does not compel
the conclusion that gang members robbed and threatened petitioners on account of
their Christian religion or their “anti-gang” political opinion. See Parussimova v.
Muksasey, 533 F.3d 1128, 1134-36 (9th Cir. 2008); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542
F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008), (a “general aversion to gangs does not constitute a
political opinion for asylum purposes”). Finally, substantial evidence supports
BIA’s conclusion that petitioners failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution based on a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
483-84 (1992). Accordingly, their asylum claim fails.
2 08-72324
Because the petitioners have not met the standard for asylum, they
necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners
are not eligible for CAT relief because they failed to show that it is more likely
than not they would be tortured in Guatemala. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d
1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006).
We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to adequately explain its
decision.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-72324