FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 15 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANTOS ELENA GALVEZ-DUARTE, No. 06-72243
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-914-994
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Santos Elena Galvez-Duarte, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Galvez-Duarte
failed to establish that she suffered past persecution. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales,
399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel finding that threats
constituted persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
determination that Galvez-Duarte failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear
of future persecution. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001)
(“applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when
similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without
incident”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ramadan v.
Gonzalez, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007); Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172,
1177 (9th Cir. 2004) (random criminal acts do not establish persecution). Thus,
Galvez-Duarte’s asylum claim fails.
Because Galvez-Duarte failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum,
her claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at
1190.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 06-72243