Rigoberto Diego-Jose v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 26 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RIGOBERTO DIEGO-JOSE, Nos. 08-72274
08-74923
Petitioner,
Agency No. A078-675-780
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2011 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Rigoberto Diego-Jose, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders upholding the
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and the
*
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).
BIA’s order denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings
and review de novo its legal conclusions. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738,
742 (9th Cir. 2008). We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a
motion for reconsideration. Morales Apolinar v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 893, 895 (9th
Cir. 2008). We deny the petitions for review.
Diego-Jose contends he suffered persecution because, as he learned years
after the fact, Guatemalan soldiers killed his father, and the family suffered
financial hardships. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that these
experiences did not establish that Diego-Jose suffered past persecution. See
Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Wakkary v. Holder, 558
F .3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (no past persecution where harm to others was not
part of “a pattern of persecution closely tied to” petitioner) (internal citation and
quotation omitted).
Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Diego-Jose’s motion
to reconsider. We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that Hernandez-Ortiz v.
Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2007) does not apply to Diego-Jose’s claim
because he merely heard about, rather than perceived, his father’s killing. See
Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted)
2 08-72274
(persecution is an "extreme concept" that includes the "infliction of suffering or
harm”). Accordingly, because Diego-Jose failed to establish past persecution, his
claim for humanitarian asylum fails. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii).
Moreover, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Diego-Jose
failed to establish he has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a
protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992).
Because Diego-Jose failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Diego-Jose has not raised any direct challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT
relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues
not supported by argument are deemed abandoned). Accordingly, we deny the
petition for review as to Diego-Jose’s CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-72274