FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 08 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICENTE ALFREDO ACEVEDO- No. 07-73313
RIVAS,
Agency No. A079-407-990
Petitioner,
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.
Vicente Alfredo Acevedo-Rivas, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily
affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
*
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).
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85
(9th Cir. 2006), and review de novo questions of law, including claims of due
process violations, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.
2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Acevedo-Rivas did
not suffer past persecution because the murder of Acevedo-Rivas’ father was not
on account of a protected ground, see Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177
(9th Cir. 2004) (random criminal acts bore no nexus to a protected ground), and the
isolated threat did not rise to the level of persecution, see Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929,
936 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that
Acevedo-Rivias did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because
he could internally relocate within El Salvador. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii).
Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.
Because Acevedo-Rivias failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Acevedo-Rivas’ contentions that the IJ
applied the wrong standard when denying his CAT claim and he was not
2 07-73313
removable as charged because Acevedo-Rivas failed to exhaust these issues before
the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 07-73313