FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN ORTIZ-MEJIA, No. 11-73301
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-070-531
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 11, 2013**
Seattle, Washington
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Juan Ortiz-Mejia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing his appeal of a decision by
the immigration judge (IJ) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Our jurisdiction is
*
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).
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review, which addresses
only Ortiz-Mejia’s application for asylum.
Because the BIA incorporated into its order the IJ’s finding that Ortiz-Mejia
had not established that he suffered from past persecution, we review both
decisions to determine whether that finding is supported by substantial evidence in
the record. Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). We
conclude that it is. Although Ortiz-Mejia testified that he had received threats
against himself, his family, and his home, he did not provide specific details as to
the tone or manner of those threats. Ortiz-Mejia, his family, and his home were
never actually harmed in any way. In the absence of more specific evidence of
threats of harm or actual harm, the agency’s finding that Ortiz-Mejia did not suffer
past persecution is supported by substantial evidence.
The agency’s determination that Ortiz-Mejia failed to establish a well-
founded fear of future persecution is likewise supported by the record. See
generally Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). To establish
eligibility for asylum because of a well-founded fear of persecution, an alien’s fear
“must be both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.” Ghaly v. INS, 58
F.3d 1425, 1428 (9th Cir. 1995). Although Ortiz-Mejia satisfied the subjective
component by providing credible testimony, see Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 338
2
(9th Cir. 1995), he did not satisfy the objective component, which “requires a
showing by credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record, of facts supporting
a reasonable fear of persecution on the relevant ground,” Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d
955, 960 (9th Cir. 1996).
Ortiz-Mejia produced some evidence that the individuals who threatened
him identified him politically with the official for whom he worked, and therefore
may have been motivated to harm him on account of a protected ground. See
Velarde v. INS, 140 F.3d 1305, 1311 (9th Cir. 1998) (imputing the political opinion
of a public official to a bodyguard for the official’s family). Even if he showed
imputed political opinion, however, Ortiz-Mejia failed to establish that his fear of
future persecution is objectively reasonable, because substantial evidence supports
the finding that it is unlikely that the persecution he fears will be ongoing.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, whatever the
reasonableness of Ortiz-Mejia’s fear in the past, it is dispelled by the fact that the
politician for whom he worked no longer is in office.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3