Case ID: f-appx_506/html/0560-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Isaac Amos ZACARIAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72334.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2013.
    Robert L. Lewis, Esquire, Marcelle Anne Rice, Law Office of Robert L. Lewis, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Imran Raza Zaidi, Trial, 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: TASHIMA, GRABER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Isaac Amos Zacarías petitions for review of the immigration judge’s rejection, affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief from removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and deny Zacarías’ petition for review.

1. While there is some record evidence to support Zacarías’ claim that he is eligible for asylum, nothing in the record compels the conclusion that he was persecuted on account of a protected ground, because it is not clear that those who mistreated him actually imputed to him a political opinion or persecuted him on account of any opinion, imputed or otherwise. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482 (9th Cir.1997) (discussing and applying INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992)).

2. Given that he fails to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, Zacarías necessarily also fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

3. Nor does the record compel the finding that it is more likely than not that Zacarías will be tortured if he is removed to Guatemala, see Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1200-01 (9th Cir.2007), or that the Guatemalan government would “turn a blind eye” to any torture in Zacarías’ case, see Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1059 (9th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, Zacarí-as has failed to establish that he is eligible for relief from removal under CAT.

4. Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the Id’s discretionary denial of Zaca-rías’ request for voluntary departure. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); see also Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1006 (9th Cir.2011). Thus, this portion of Zacarías’ petition must be dismissed.

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