Luis Hernandez-Mejia v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS HERNANDEZ-MEJIA, No. 08-74851
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-084-661
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Luis Hernandez-Mejia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum and cancellation
of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we review de novo due process claims,
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Hernandez-Mejia’s
asylum claim because he failed to demonstrate he was or will be harmed on
account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83
(1992) (even if the petitioner holds a political opinion, he still must establish
targeting because of that political opinion). Accordingly, Hernandez-Mejia’s
asylum claim fails. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
Hernandez-Mejia contends the agency applied the incorrect legal standard to
his cancellation of removal claim, and in particular, failed to consider his ability to
work and support his children in El Salvador. The record belies this contention.
Because the agency applied the correct legal standard, we lack jurisdiction to
review the agency’s discretionary hardship determination. See Mendez-Castro v.
Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 08-74851