Case ID: f-appx_168/html/0783-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jorge CARMONA-OLVERA; Maria Carmona, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-75525.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
    
    Decided Feb. 22, 2006.
    Jorge Carmona-Olvera, Atwater, CA, pro se.
    Maria Carmona, Atwater, CA, pro se.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jorge Carmona-Olvera and his wife Maria Carmona, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review for substantial evidence, see Rostomian v. INS, 210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Carmona-Olvera failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution because he failed to establish a nexus between the economic hardship and general violence in Mexico and a protected ground for asylum. See id. (concluding that an asylum claim based on general civil strife or random violence is not sufficient to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution); see also Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865-66 (9th Cir.2001) (requiring alien to establish nexus between alleged persecution and protected ground).

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.