FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN ESVERILDO GRAMAJO No. 12-71115
VASQUEZ; JUAN CARLOS GRAMAJO
CHAVEZ, Agency Nos. A072-125-969
A076-866-510
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Juan Esverildo Gramajo Vasquez and Juan Carlos Gramajo Chavez, natives
and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
*
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).
decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Gonzalez-
Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition
for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that the harm Gramajo Vasquez
suffered or fears in Guatemala was or will be on account of his imputed political
opinion. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1489-91 (9th Cir. 1997); INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (“[t]o reverse the BIA finding we must find
that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it”) (emphasis in
original). In the absence of past persecution, Gramajo Vasquez’s humanitarian
asylum claim necessarily fails. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii).
In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that even if
Gramajo Vasquez established past persecution, the government rebutted his
presumption of future persecution by establishing changed circumstances in
Guatemala. See Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 998-1001. The agency
provided a sufficiently individualized analysis of Gramajo Vasquez’s future fear
and did not err in relying on a State Department report. See id. (individualized
analysis of changed conditions in Guatemala rebutted presumption of well-founded
2 12-71115
fear based on political opinion); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th
Cir. 2002) (“Even in the face of a presumption of future persecution, a State
Department report is relevant.”). Accordingly, Gramajo Vasquez’s asylum claim
fails.
Because Gramajo Vasquez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 1001 n.5.
Turning to Gramajo Chavez’s claims, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s finding that even if Gramajo Chavez established past persecution, the
government rebutted his presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution
by establishing changed circumstances in Guatemala. See id. at 998-1001.
Accordingly, Gramajo Chavez’s asylum claim fails.
Because Gramajo Chavez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See id. at 1001 n.5.
Finally, petitioners did not challenge the agency’s denial of their CAT
claims. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-71115