FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDIN RODOLFO MEDRANO MERLOS, No. 09-73696
Petitioner, Agency No. A071-588-981
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges
Edin Rodolfo Medrano Merlos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings and review de novo legal determinations. Santos-
Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA considered the cumulative harms Merlos experienced, including the
deaths and disappearances of his friends and family, and denied relief. Substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Merlos failed to establish that he
suffered harm that rose to the level of 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 a part of “a pattern of
persecution closely tied to” petitioner) (internal citation and quotation omitted). In
addition, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Merlos failed to
establish a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected
ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992) (petitioner failed
to show the guerillas would persecute him because of his political opinion).
Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of the asylum
claims. See id. at 481, n.1 (to reverse the agency’s finding “we must find that the
evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it”) (emphasis in original).
09-73696
Because Merlos failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily fails
to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Merlos failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by
or with the acquiescence of a government official if returned to Guatemala. See
Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
09-73696