Case ID: f-appx_360/html/0857-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anibal Adolio Giron MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71647.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 29, 2009.
    Steven P. Brazelton, Reno, NV, for Petitioner.
    District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Aníbal Adolio Giron Martinez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

Giron Martinez testified he fears personal retribution from former civil patrol members who hold a grudge against him for leaving Guatemala without serving in the military. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Giron Martinez did not establish a well-founded fear on account of a protected ground if he returns to Guatemala. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1170-72 (9th Cir.2005) (concluding that petitioners failed to prove their fear of persecution was on account of a protected ground); see also Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir.2001) (personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). Accordingly, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.