Case ID: f-appx_237/html/0231-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Franklin Estuardo VILLATORO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71261.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 5, 2007 .
    Filed June 14, 2007.
    
      Jonathan C. Rolnick, Esq., San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Larry P. Cote, Esq., Kathryn Moore, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Franklin Estuardo Villatoro, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision that affirmed the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Aruta, v. INS, 80 F.3d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir.1996), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the threats Villatoro received from Bandegua guards, after he witnessed a murder, did not occur on account of a protected ground because personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir.2001). Thus, Villatoro’s asylum claim fails. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).

Because Villatoro failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, it necessarily follows that he failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

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