FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO SIQUINA-CACATZUN, a.k.a. No. 12-71372
Jose Siquina Cacatzun,
Agency No. A073-120-738
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Siquina-Cacatzun, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Siquina-Cacatzun’s
experiences with guerrillas in Guatemala did not rise to the level of past
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003) (record
did not compel finding of past persecution where petitioner was harassed, but
“never suffered any significant physical violence.”). The record does not compel
the finding that Siquina-Cacatzun established his fear of future harm by guerrillas
was on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
482 (1992). In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination
that his fear of crime in Guatemala is not a basis for relief. See Zetino v. Holder,
622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment
by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no
nexus to a protected ground.”). Consequently, Siquina-Cacatzun’s asylum claim
fails.
Because Siquina-Cacatzun failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his
withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
2 12-71372
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Siquina-Cacatzun failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in
Guatemala. See Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-71372