Case ID: f-appx_271/html/0612-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Erick Ludwing GALVEZ-PALMA; Isabel Christina Galvez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73651.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2008.
    
    Filed March 25, 2008.
    Gerald Shapiro, Esq., Law Offices of Fuire & Shapiro, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Paul Ahern, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Erick Ludwing Galvez-Palma and his wife are natives and citizens of Guatemala. Petitioners seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their claim for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the two death threats Galvez-Palma endured did not amount to past persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (9th Cir.2000). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Galvez-Palma did not have a well-founded fear, because his fear is too speculative. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir.2006).

Because Petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

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