FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDEL NAUN-ZUNIGA, No. 10-71882
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-353-173
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 24, 2013 **
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Edel Naun-Zuniga, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Naun-Zuniga
failed to establish past persecution or an objectively reasonable fear of future
persecution on account of a protected ground, because he did not demonstrate that
his attacker was or would be motivated by more than a desire to prevent Naun-
Zuniga from avenging his brother’s death. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d
734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he REAL ID Act requires that a protected ground
represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); Molina-
Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal retribution is not
persecution on account of a protected ground). Accordingly, Naun-Zuniga’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Naun-Zuniga failed to demonstrate that he will more likely than not be
tortured if he returns to Honduras or that the feared torture would be conducted
with the acquiescence of a public official. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066,
1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-71882