Case ID: f-appx_367/html/0820-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edilson RODRIGUEZ-LUZ Jr., Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73208.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2010.
    Allan A. Samson, Esquire, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michael C. Heyse, Esquire, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edilson Rodriguez-Luz Jr., a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision 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. We review for substantial evidence, Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Rodriguez-Luz failed to establish he was persecuted on account of a protected ground, see Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2001) (personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground), and the agency’s finding Rodriguez-Luz failed to show he was or would be persecuted by the Brazilian government or by persons the government was unwilling or unable to control, see Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1071-72 (9th Cir.2005). Accordingly, Rodriguez-Luz’s asylum claim fails. See id. at 1072.

Because Rodriguez-Luz failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See id.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Rodriguez-Luz did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Brazilian government. See Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir.2004).

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