Case ID: f-appx_367/html/0785-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alejandro GARCIA BENITEZ, a.k.a Pedro Raul Martinez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73866.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2010.
    
      Sharon A. Healey, Law Office of Sharon A. Healey, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Regan Hildebrand, Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, OIL, Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Mary Jane Candaux, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel Seattle, WA, 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

Alejandro Garcia Benitez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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 de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

The opening brief does not challenge the agency’s finding that Garcia-Benitez’s asylum application was time-barred.

We reject Garcia-Benitez’s contention that he was persecuted on account of his membership in a protected class. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 945-46 (9th Cir.2007); see also Sanchez-Trujillo v. INS, 801 F.2d 1571, 1573, 1576-77 (9th Cir.1986). Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s findings that Garcia-Benitez failed to provide an objective basis for future fear of persecution, see Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1065-66 (9th Cir.2008), and that Garcia-Benitez could relocate within Mexico, see 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(3)(i) (in the absence of past persecution, petitioner bears the burden of showing that internal relocation is unreasonable).

Because there is no evidence that he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a government official, Garcia-Benitez has not demonstrated his eligibility for CAT relief. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

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