FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 07 2011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
WILMER ALONSO CORREA No. 09-70648
COLORADO; et al.,
Agency Nos. A098-822-718
Petitioners, A098-822-719
A098-822-720
v. A098-822-721
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Wilmer Alonso Correa Colorado and his family, natives and citizens of
Colombia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
481 & n.1 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.
Colorado contends he suffered past persecution and has a well-founded fear
of future persecution by a paramilitary group or the Revolutionary Armed Forces
of Colombia on account of his actual or imputed political opinion. Contrary to his
contention, the record supports the agency’s finding that these groups targeted
Colorado in order to extort money from him. Accordingly, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s conclusion that Colorado did not establish he suffered past
persecution or fears future persecution on account of a protected ground. See id.;
see also Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1280-81 (9th Cir. 1998) (criminal
activity does not establish persecution on account of a protected ground); see also
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he REAL ID Act
requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum
applicant’s persecution”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because Colorado failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
2 09-70648
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Colorado failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured if returned to Colombia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68
(9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-70648