Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0580-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ronald Ismael GUARDADO-ALCANTARA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-70668.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.
    
    Filed Aug. 20, 2007.
    Jorge I. Rodriguez-Choi, Esq., Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Marc Marsteller, M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., Michelle G. Swaney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ronald Ismael Guardado-Alcantara, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that adopted and affirmed immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that petitioner did not carry his burden of demonstrating that the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to control the persons who threatened to kill petitioner. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). Substantial evidence thus also supports the IJ’s decision to deny petitioner’s claim for asylum. See id.

Because petitioner’s asylum claim fails, so does his claim for withholding of removal. See Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 525 (9th Cir.2006).

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