FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANGEL CHAVEZ-JOAQUIN and ERIKA No. 09-71414
DINA PORTILLO-TORRES a/k/a/
ERIKA DINA PORTILLO a/k/a ERIKA Agency Nos. A099-577-166 and
PORTILLO, A099-577-168
Petitioners,
MEMORANDUM *
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 8, 2010 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: M. SMITH and THOMAS, Circuit Judges; COLLINS, District Judge***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge, in and
for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Substantial evidence supports the determination by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that petitioners did not establish eligibility for
asylum. Chavez-Joaquin has not established that any persecution he suffered in El
Salvador was on account of a protected ground. See Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232
F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Persecution occurring because a person is a
current member of a police force . . . is ‘not on account of one of the grounds
enumerated in the Act.’” (emphasis added) (citing Aguilar-Escobar v. INS, 136
F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 1998))).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that petitioners
have not demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution. Without more,
the threats Chavez-Joaquin allegedly received from gang members do not rise to
the requisite level for asylum eligibility. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444
F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). Having failed to establish asylum eligibility,
petitioners do not satisfy the higher standard required for withholding of removal
under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 658 (9th Cir.
2007) (per curiam).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of relief under the
Convention Against Torture, given that only a single, unsubstantiated assertion
presented to the BIA refers to the likelihood of torture. See Villegas v. Mukasey,
2
523 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2008) ("An applicant for CAT relief has the burden 'to
establish that it is more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed.'"
(quoting Al-Saher v. INS, 268 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2001)) (alteration in
original)).
PETITION DENIED.
3