FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERMAN ARMANDO BLANCO- No. 08-73070
RODRIGUEZ; MARIA ANTONIA
MALLARINO, Agency Nos. A099-345-247
A099-345-248
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
German Armando Blanco-Rodriguez and Maria Antonia Mallarino, natives
and citizens of Colombia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
*
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).
denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Ramos-Lopez v.
Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 858 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of
removal because petitioners failed to show that the kidnaping and threats
experienced by Blanco-Rodriguez were motivated on account of a protected
ground rather than by personal retribution. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d
1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (“purely personal retribution is, of course, not
persecution on account of” a protected ground); Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482,
1487 (9th Cir. 1997) (a petitioner cannot establish a nexus to a protected ground by
inference “unless the inference is one that is clearly to be drawn from the facts in
evidence”). In the absence of a nexus to a protected ground, petitioners’ asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail. Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1167
(9th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not that they will be tortured on
return to Colombia. See Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-73070