Case ID: f-appx_151/html/0544-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Luis LOPEZ-ZAMORA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-74435.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct 11, 2005.
    
    Decided Oct. 19, 2005.
    Michael Franquinha, Law Office of Michael Franquinha, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, William Nixon, Dustin Pead, U.S. Attorney’s Office Assistants U.S. Attorney, Salt Lake City, UT, for Respondent.
    Before: HALL, T.G. NELSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Luis Lopez-Zamora, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings, Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Lopez-Zamora failed to qualify for withholding of removal because Lopez-Zamora testified that the gang members that attacked him were not associated with the government and that he did not report the attack to the police. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.2005) (indicating that failure to inform the government of an incident of persecution committed by a private actor undercuts the conclusion that the government is unwilling or unable to control the private actor’s attempts at persecution).

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.