FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUSTAVO PEREZ HERNANDEZ, No. 10-73136
FRANCISCA JERONIMA BALTAZAR,
Agency Nos. A073-419-233
Petitioners, A095-599-971
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Gustavo Perez Hernandez and Francisca Jeronima Baltazar, natives and
citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
order dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying their
*
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).
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence factual findings. Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft,
336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the threats and
beatings Perez experienced at the hands of guerilla and government soldiers did not
rise to the level of persecution. See Canales-Vargas v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 739,
744 (9th Cir. 2006) (threats petitioner received, absent evidence they would be
fulfilled, did not compel a finding of persecution); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d
336, 339 (9th Cir. 1995) (a single instance of abusive detention by a group of
military and civilian attackers did not constitute persecution). Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s finding that Perez failed to demonstrate a well-founded
fear of persecution. See Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 997-98, 1000-01 (the
1996 peace accords ending Guatemalan civil war may rebut a presumption of well-
founded fear); see also Belayneh v. INS, 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 2000)
(evidence of uneventful return trips to home country may show petitioner’s fear of
future persecution is not well founded); Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th
Cir. 2009) (evidence that petitioner’s family lives unharmed in home country tends
to show fear of persecution is not well founded); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,
2 10-73136
1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’s subjective fear of criminal violence bears no
nexus to a protected ground). Petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners could not meet the burden of establishing eligibility for
asylum, the agency correctly found they could not meet the heavier burden of
qualifying for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Lastly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they will be tortured
if they return to Guatemala. See Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir.
2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-73136