FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO CASTRO-BONILLA, No. 10-70816
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-911-529
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Castro-Bonilla, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review
of the 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. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Wakkary
v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), we deny the petition for review.
Castro-Bonilla claims he was persecuted due to an incident in which
Sandinistas chased him and attacked his cousin. Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s conclusion that Castro-Bonilla did not suffer past persecution. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1017 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]hat Nagoulko
witnessed the beating of some of her co-workers does not compel a factfinder to
conclude that Nagoulko suffered from past persecution.”). We reject Castro-
Bonilla’s contention that the agency erred by requiring that he have suffered
physical harm because this is belied by the record. Having failed to establish past
persecution, Castro-Bonilla is not entitled to a presumption of future persecution.
See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1). Apart from his presumption contention, Castro-
Bonilla does not argue that he otherwise established a well-founded fear of future
persecution.
Because Castro-Bonilla failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, he
necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, the record does not compel the conclusion that Castro-Bonilla likely
will be tortured at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, the
2
government if he returns to Nicaragua. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948
(9th Cir. 2007). Contrary to Castro-Bonilla’s contention, the agency sufficiently
analyzed Castro-Bonilla’s claim for CAT relief. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457
F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006) (CAT regulation “does not require an IJ’s decision to
discuss every piece of evidence; it requires only that the IJ consider all evidence.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3