FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 12 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EPIFANIO TEO PINTO, No. 06-73369
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-530-318
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 8, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: FISHER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEA, District Judge.**
Petitioner Epifanio Teo Pinto, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision reversing an
immigration judge’s grant of asylum and denying his application for asylum,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Edward F. Shea, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for Eastern Washington, Spokane, sitting by designation.
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We
deny the petition for review.
Petitioner raises two arguments. First, he argues that, contrary to the BIA’s
conclusion, he was persecuted by Guatemalan guerillas on account of his political
opinion. Under the substantial evidence standard, we may reverse the BIA’s
determination that Petitioner failed to establish persecution on account of a ground
enumerated in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) only if a reasonable fact-finder would
have been compelled to reach a different conclusion. Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232
F.3d 1024, 1028–30 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, the record does not compel the
conclusion that the Guatemalan guerillas attempted to recruit Petitioner because of
Petitioner’s actual or imputed political opinion. As regards Petitioner’s actual
political opinion, his testimony that he refused to join the guerillas because he did
not like fighting is insufficient to establish that his refusal to join the guerillas was
politically motivated. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482 (1992). And
as regards any imputed political opinion, Petitioner’s testimony—that the guerillas
beat him to discover whether he had reported any of the guerillas’ activities to the
Guatemalan army and that they told him that if he refused to join them, he would
meet the same fate as his uncle, who was killed while serving in the Guatemalan
army—is insufficient to establish that the guerillas imputed to Petitioner a pro-
2
government political opinion. See Cruz-Navarro, 232 F.3d at 1030 (“While the
guerillas may have regarded Cruz as an informant, this is not akin to imputing a
political belief to him.”); Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1489–90 (9th Cir.1997)
(holding that applicant failed to establish imputed political opinion where he
presented no evidence that an anti-governmental guerilla group imputed his
father’s political beliefs to him). Accordingly, we affirm the BIA’s determination
that Petitioner failed to establish persecution on account of a protected ground.
Second, in a three-sentence argument, Petitioner alleges that the BIA did not
consider all the evidence of persecution, thus depriving him of a full and fair
hearing in violation of his due process rights. We reject this argument because
Petitioner’s broad and cursory allegation fails to “overcome the presumption that
[the BIA] did review the evidence.” See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092,
1095–96 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION DENIED.
3