Case ID: f-appx_146/html/0905-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gregorio Gonzalez GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-73864.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 11, 2005.
    
    Decided Oct. 21, 2005.
    Susan E. Hill, Hill & Piibe, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Ann Carroll Varnon, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: T.G. NELSON, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gregorio Gonzalez Gonzalez is a native and citizen of Guatemala. Gonzalez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“U”) order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

“Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision while adding its own reasons, we review both decisions.” See Kataria v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir.2000). We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny this petition for review.

Even assuming that Gonzalez testified credibly, we conclude that the harm that Gonzalez suffered did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that Gonzalez failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in Guatemala. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1016-18.

Because Gonzalez did not establish that he was eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the IPs denial of Gonzalez’s CAT claim. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.