FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NICOLAS JORGE ROSALES-GUINEA, No. 10-70102
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-525-516
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2011**
Portland, Oregon
Before: THOMAS and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN,*** District Judge.
Petitioner Nicolas Jorge Rosales-Guinea, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") denial of
asylum and withholding of removal. Reviewing the BIA’s factual determinations
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable James C. Mahan, United States District Judge for the
District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
for substantial evidence, Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir.
2009), we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that, even assuming
that Petitioner established the presumption of a well-founded fear of future
persecution, the presumption was rebutted by evidence of changed country
conditions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(substantial evidence exists "unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled
to conclude to the contrary"). The record shows that the Guatemalan civil war
ended in 1996. The State Department’s 2006 country report on Guatemala makes
no mention of reprisals against former members of the Guatemalan military by
former guerillas, and it expressly notes that there were "no reports of politically
motivated disappearances." The BIA’s analysis of changed country conditions was
sufficiently individualized because it also found that Petitioner’s father and brother
continue to live unharmed in Guatemala, despite their past military service, and
that there was no "evidence that anyone currently wishes to harm [Petitioner]."
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA's determination that Petitioner
reasonably could relocate to another area of Guatemala. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B). Petitioner's testimony before the immigration judge
established that, in 1987, he left his home village and relocated to Guatemala City,
2
where he lived for two years without incident. Accordingly, the BIA did not err in
denying Petitioner’s application for asylum.
For the same reasons, we affirm the BIA’s denial of Petitioner’s withholding
of removal claim. See Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888–89 (9th Cir. 2001)
("[The] clear probability standard for withholding of removal is more stringent
than the well-founded fear standard governing asylum." (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted)).
Petition DENIED.
3