Case ID: f-appx_599/html/0768-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ediberto ALVAREZ-LOPEZ, aka Edilberto Cornelio Alvarez-Lopez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73168.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 7, 2015.
    
    Filed April 15, 2015.
    Jenny Tsai, Attorneys at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Ann M. Welhaf, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Respondent.
    Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ediberto Alvarez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we review de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that AIvarez-Lopez’s past experiences in Guatemala with gang members did not rise to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir.2003) (record did not compel finding of past persecution); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir.1995) (“Although a reasonable factfinder could have found [these incidents constituted] past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder would be compelled to do so.”) Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that Alvarez-Lopez failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (fear of future harm is too speculative). In light of these conclusions, we reject AIva-rez-Lopez’s due process contention regarding his political opinion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge). Thus, AIvarez-Lopez’s asylum claim fails.

Because AIvarez-Lopez’s failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, Alvarez-Lopez does not make any specific arguments challenging the IJ’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned).

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