NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 15 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
EDUARDO ALCIDES RAMIREZ No. 08-73176
GUILLEN,
Agency No. A070-070-025
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2009**
Seattle, Washington
Before: BEEZER, GOULD and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Eduardo Alcides Ramirez Guillen seeks review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision adopting the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)
denial of Guillen’s asylum application. The IJ found that Guillen was barred from
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(i) because Guillen participated in the
persecution of others on account of a protected ground. We need not decide that
issue because, in the alternative, the IJ found that Guillen failed to establish past
persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution as required by 8 U.S.C. §§
1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1). We review the latter issue for substantial evidence,
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition.
Although Guillen testified to a subjectively genuine fear of persecution,
there was no evidence showing that fear to be objectively reasonable. See
Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding substantial
evidence supported the IJ’s determination because the alien’s family members
remained in the home country and were not persecuted). Because the IJ properly
concluded that Guillen failed to demonstrate his eligibility for asylum, his claim
for withholding of removal also fails. Id.
We do not address the IJ’s decision regarding Guillen’s claim under the
Convention Against Torture because Guillen waived it by not challenging this
decision in his opening appellate brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION DENIED.
2