Case ID: f-appx_262/html/0754-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anibal Benjamin SANCHEZ-GARCIA, Teresa Vargas Vargas-Sanchez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-77293.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.
    
    Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
    Daniel E. Chavez, Esq., Law Offices of Daniel E. Chavez, Petaluma, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Deborah K. Snyder, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Aníbal Benjamin Sanchez-Garcia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, and his wife, Teresa Vargas Vargas-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying Sanchez-Garcia’s application for asylum. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir.2005), we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Sanchez-Garcia failed to demonstrate past persecution because he did not testify that he was ever harmed, threatened, or even directly confronted by the Guatemalan army. See id. at 1153.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Sanchez-Garcia failed to demonstrate his claimed fear of persecution is objectively reasonable. See id. at 1154.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.