FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Jose Leonardo No. 08-71552
Angulo-Sanchez, a.k.a. Jose Angulo-
Sanchez, a.k.a. Jose Leonardo Angulo, Agency No. A097-894-447
a.k.a. Jose Angulo,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM *
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Sanchez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
*
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).
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for substantial evidence factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056
(9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that the cumulative
harm Sanchez suffered in Nicaragua, which included employment discrimination
and harassment, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333
F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s
finding that Sanchez failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future
persecution because it is too speculative to assume that he will be persecuted as a
result of the Sandinistas’ return to power. See id. at 1018. Accordingly, Sanchez’s
asylum claim fails.
Because Sanchez did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily
follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, we deny Sanchez’s request for judicial notice of evidence that was
available before the BIA’s decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); cf. Gafoor v.
INS, 231 F.3d 645, 655-57 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-71552