N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ELDER W ILLIAN C ARDONA-OLIVA, AKA He lde r W ilia

m C ardona -Oliva , AKA Elde r W ilia

m C ontre ra s-Oliva , AKA Elde r W illia n C ontre ra s-Oliva , Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-73717 Age n c y No. A200-036-538 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2014 ** B e fore : LEAVY, FISHER and N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Elde r W illia

n C a rdona -Oliva , a

native an d c itiz e n of Gua te m a l a , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r sum m arily a ffirm ing an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding



# FIL ED DEC 2 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).of re m ova l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w de novo c onc lusions of la w a nd for substa ntia l e vide nc e fa c tua l findings, W a k k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th C ir. 2009), a

nd we de ny the pe tition for re v i e w. The B IA’ s issua

nc e of a sum m ary a ffirm anc e without opinion did not viola t e C ardona ’ s c onstitutiona

l right to due

proc e ss. Se e Falc on C

arric hev . Ashc roft , 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th C ir. 2003) . C ardona ’ s c om

pla ints of mistre atm e nt a

nd thre ats in M e xic o by

m e m be rs of a politic a l pa

rty and his e x-wife ’ s boy frie nd c annot e sta blish his e l igibility

for a sy lum , be c a

u s e C ardona

a dm its tha

t he is a native an d c itiz e n of Gua te m a l a who ha s ne v e r e sta

blishe d le ga l re side nc y

in M e xic o. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a)(42)(A) (in orde r to be e ligiblefor a sy lum , a n a pplic ant m

ust e sta b lish ina bility or unwillingne ss to re turn “ any c ountry of suc h pe rson’ s na

tiona l ity or, in thec a se of a pe rson ha

ving no na

tiona lity , . . . a

ny c ountry in whic h suc h pe rson la s t ha bitua lly re side d” ). Thus, C ardona ’ s a sy lum c la im ba se d on e ve nts in M e xic o fa ils. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s finding tha

t C a rdona ha s fa ile d to e sta blish e l igibility

for a s y lum ba se d on his fe ar of ga n gs in Gua

te m a la . The risk that C ardona m ay be subje c te d

to ga ng viole nc e tha

t is ge ne ra lly

pre va l e nt in 1 2 - 7 3 7 1 7 2Guate m a la , or tha t ga ngs who ha

ve ta rge t e d C ardona ’ s unc le in the pa st m ay m ista ke C ardona

for his unc le , is insuffic i e nt to e sta b l ish e ligibility

for a sy lum . Se e Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ An a lie n’ s de sire to be fre e from ha ra ssm e nt by c rim ina ls m otiva te d by the ft or ra

ndom viole n c e by

ga ng m e m b e rs be ars to ne xus to a

prote c te d ground.” ). B e c a use C a rdona ha s not e sta

blishe d e ligibility

for a s y lum , he ne c e ssa

rily c annot m e e t the m ore stringe nt sta nda rd for withholding of re

m ova l. Se e Ze haty e v . Gonzale

s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th C ir. 2006). Fina lly , substa

ntia l e v ide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f be c a use C ardona

fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t it is more like ly

tha n not tha t he will be torture d by

or with thea c quie sc e nc e of the gove rnm e nt of Gua te m a la . Se e Silay a v . Muk ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2008). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 3 7 1 7 3