Case ID: f-appx_94/html/0542-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Erineo De Jesus SANTIZO-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-71794.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2004.
    
    Decided March 30, 2004.
    
      Erineo De Jesus Santizo-Rodriguez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., William C. Minick, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, WARDLAW, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The court sua sponte changes the docket to reflect that John Ashcroft, Attorney General, is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Erineo de Jesus Santizo-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Because the transitional rules apply, Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We deny the petition for review.

Because Santizo-Rodriguez failed to demonstrate that he suffered past persecution or that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Santizo-Rodriguez was not eligible for asylum. See Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir.2003) (stating that applicant’s ability to reasonably relocate internally is an appropriate consideration when denying asylum); Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir.2003) (upholding a denial of asylum based on changed country conditions in Guatemala).

Because Santizo-Rodriguez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. See Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 971 (9th Cir.1998).

Finally, the BIA’s summary affirmance without opinion does not violate due process. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir.2003).

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 may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.