FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MACHIC MIGUEL SANCHEZ, No. 08-70189
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-684-741
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.
Machic Miguel Sanchez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence factual findings, Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854 (9th Cir. 2009) and
review de novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105,
1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even if credible,
Sanchez failed to establish the threats he received rose to the level of persecution,
see Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2005), or that he
suffered past persecution or has a well founded fear of future persecution on
account of a protected ground, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84
(1992) (attempted recruitment by guerillas, without more, is insufficient to
establish persecution or well-founded fear on account of political opinion).
Further, Sanchez’s contention that the BIA failed to consider his recruitment claim
is belied by the record. Accordingly, Sanchez’s asylum claim fails.
Because Sanchez has not met the standard for asylum, he necessarily cannot
meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Sanchez is
not eligible for CAT relief because he failed to show it is more likely than not he
2 08-70189
would be tortured if removed to Guatemala. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542
F.3d 738, 747-48 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, we reject Sanchez’s contention that his due process rights were
violated by the IJ’s bias. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and prejudice to establish a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-70189