FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 15 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILIAN ENRIQUE BARRERA-DONIS, No. 09-73574
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-905-213
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 11, 2011 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: FISHER, GOULD and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Wilián Enrique Barrera-Donis petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his
application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition for review.
*
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).
1. The BIA’s determination that Barrera-Donis suffered no past persecution
on account of the political opinion imputed to him as a former military officer is
supported by substantial evidence. Barrera-Donis contends that, after he left
military service, guerrillas against whom he once fought wanted to attack him to
obtain confidential military information. He admits, however, that neither he nor
his family has ever been harmed, threatened or even contacted by the guerrillas.
The “general climate of hostility” between the guerrillas and military officers like
Barrera-Donis that prevailed at the time he left the army does not suffice to
demonstrate past persecution. Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1025 (9th Cir.
2009).
2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Barrera-Donis’
fear of future persecution on the basis of his political opinion is not objectively
reasonable. There is no “credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record of
facts that would support a reasonable fear of persecution.” Duarte de Guinac v.
INS, 179 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999). Barrera-Donis’ own testimony
explaining the basis for his fear of guerrilla persecution was vague and speculative.
The documentary evidence Barrera-Donis submitted does not substantiate his fear
of persecution, either.
2
3. The BIA correctly concluded that no statutorily protected basis for relief
is implicated by Barrera-Donis’ status as a Guatemalan returning from the United
States who may be perceived as wealthy. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d
1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). That social group is “too broad to
qualify for the requested relief.” Id. at 1150.
4. Because substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum, Barrera-
Donis’ application for withholding of removal was also properly denied. See
Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Substantial evidence
also supports the BIA’s denial of relief under the CAT, because “generalized
evidence of violence and crime . . . is insufficient to meet [the CAT] standard.”
Delgado-Ortiz, 600 F.3d at 1152.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3