FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 11 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIO CESAR ESCOBAR- No. 07-75136
HERNANDEZ,
Agency No. A079-216-353
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 6, 2012 **
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, TROTT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that petitioner failed to
establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account
of “membership in a particular social group.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Kinship
*
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).
ties may constitute membership in a particular social group for asylum purposes,
Thomas v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), rev’d on other
grounds, Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183, 186 (2006), as long as an asylum
applicant can establish that the past or anticipated persecution was “on account of”
such kinship ties, Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the intruders who attacked
petitioner did so not because he was related to his cousin, but because of his likely
knowledge of his cousin’s location. Petitioner did not present any evidence that
the individuals attacked or intimidated any of his other family members. Thus, the
BIA correctly concluded that he failed to demonstrate persecution on account of
membership in a particular social group.
Absent past persecution, a petitioner must demonstrate a subjectively
genuine and objectively reasonable well-founded fear of future persecution.
Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007). In particular, a petitioner
must establish that it would not be reasonable for him to relocate. 8 C.F.R. §
1208.13(b)(3)(I). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that
Petitioner could relocate within El Salvador and that his fear of persecution upon
returning to El Salvador is not objectively reasonable.
-2-
Because petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, the BIA
correctly concluded that he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard
for withholding of removal. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.
2006).
Given our conclusions, we need not–and do not–reach any other issue urged
by the parties.
PETITION DENIED.
-3-