Case ID: f-appx_424/html/0685-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gerson Norberto ORDONEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73991.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 28, 2011.
    William J. Baker, Moreno & Associates, Chula Vista, CA, for Petitioner.
    Genevieve Holm, OIL, Manuel Palau, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, LEAVY and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Gerson Norberto Ordonez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal because Ordonez failed to establish that guerrillas threatened him on account of a protected ground. See I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (holding that forced recruitment alone is not enough to show persecution on account of political opinion).

We decline to address Ordonez’s unexhausted contention that he is eligible for a grant of humanitarian asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d); Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000) (declining to consider a claim that Board did not have first opportunity to consider).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Petitioner does not challenge the denial of his applications for protection under the Convention Against Torture or cancellation of removal.