FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HECTOR OVIDIO PEREZ; et al., No. 07-71762
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A070-916-975
A095-186-031
v. A072-403-940
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Affairs
Submitted March 18, 2011 **
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, NOONAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Lead petitioner Hector Ovidio Perez and derivative petitioners Maria del
Rosario Ramirez and Waldemar Perez Vasquez petition for review of decisions of
the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their application for asylum,
*
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).
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Petitioners also seek review of the BIA’s decision denying a motion to reopen
based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA’s decision to deny asylum, withholding of removal and protection
under the Convention Against Torture must be upheld if “supported by reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Molina-
Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002). The BIA’s decision not to
reopen the application is reviewed for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502
U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992).
Perez did not have personal contact with the guerrillas by whom he claims
he was persecuted. He presented no evidence to establish the guerrillas’ motives
for wanting to harm him. An imputed political opinion must be proven through
facts in evidence that show the persecutor’s motives. See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d
646, 657 (9th Cir. 2000) (applicant must present “some evidence, direct or
circumstantial” that the acts of persecution were motivated by one of the protected
grounds) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992); see also
Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The petitioner must prove
something more than violence plus a disparity of views”). Perez’s membership in
2
the Guatemalan civil patrol and his ranking as the patrol’s commissioner do not
suffice to show an imputed political opinion. Arriaga-Barreinetos, 937 F.2d 411,
414 (9th Cir. 1991) (mandatory service in the Guatemalan military did not
demonstrate imputed political opinion). Additionally, since Perez failed to
produce any evidence to show that he would likely be tortured by, or through the
acquiescence of the Guatemalan government, he is ineligible for protection under
the Convention Against Torture. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th
Cir. 2003) (holding that to qualify for protection under the convention against
torture, an alien must show that he will more likely than not be tortured in his
home country if removed).
Finally, the failure of Perez’s attorney to inform him of derivative petitioner
Ramirez’s receipt of Temporary Protected Status had no bearing on Perez’s
application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. See Ray v. Gonzalez, 439 F.3d 582, 588 (9th Cir.
2006). The attorney’s error also did not prejudice Ramirez, who, in receipt of her
new status, was no longer deportable. See 8 CFR §1244.10(f)(2)(i).
PETITION DENIED.
3