FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 01 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROGELIO TOJ-CULPATAN, No. 05-72179
Petitioner, Agency No. A076-690-191
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 March 10, 2009
San Francisco, California
Filed
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HUG and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner, Rogelio Toj-Culpatan, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily
affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Petitioner’s request for asylum,
withholding of removal, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Torture (“CAT”). We analyze Petitioner’s contentions related to his asylum
application in an accompanying opinion. Because the parties are familiar with the
facts, we recite them only as necessary to our disposition.
We review the factual findings underlying a denial of withholding of
removal and deferral of removal for substantial evidence. INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); Muradin v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1208, 1210 (9th Cir.
2007). Findings of fact are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would
be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
An alien is entitled to withholding of removal if he proves it is more likely
than not that his “life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of
the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). An alien is entitled to deferral of
removal under CAT if he proves it is more likely than not he will be tortured upon
his return. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(4).
Here, the record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than
not Petitioner will be persecuted or tortured in the future if he returns to
Guatemala. The IJ found that Petitioner’s brother suffered past persecution, but
that Petitioner did not. Further, the IJ found that conditions have changed in
Guatemala; there is no longer a war between the guerrillas and the government.
2
Although threats were made against Petitioner, the IJ found they had nothing
to do with the torture of his brother by men Petitioner believed to be associated
with the military. See Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 2009)
(denying CAT relief because there was no evidence showing a likelihood of
torture). Petitioner received only isolated threats from two men who had a
personal vendetta against Petitioner, and the threats were not made on account of a
protected ground. See id. at 1164-65; Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177
(9th Cir. 2004) (stating that random criminal acts do not establish persecution).
Because the IJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, we deny the
petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3