Case Name: Victor Donato LAPA-ALZAMORA; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-13
Citations: 81 F. App'x 166
Docket Number: No. 02-74243; Agency Nos. A77-818-611, A77-818-612
Parties: Victor Donato LAPA-ALZAMORA; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 81
Pages: 166–167

Head Matter:
Victor Donato LAPA-ALZAMORA; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-74243.
Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 10, 2003.
Decided Nov. 13, 2003.
Raul R. Labrador, Labrador Law Offices, Nampa, ID, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Helena District Office, Helena, MT, Richard M. Evans, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before KOZINSKI, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Victor Donato Lapa-Alzamora and Sole-dad Peinado Lazo, natives and citizens of Peru, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, affirming without opinion the immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of their applications for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, and factual findings for substantial evidence. Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition.
Lapa-Alzamora's evidence that he received death threats from anti-government guerrillas does not compel a finding that it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted were he to return to Peru. See e.g., Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that lifetime of insults, harassment, death threats, and one beating supported grant of asy lum, but evidence did not compel eligibility for withholding).
PETITION 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
. Petitioners do not challenge the IJ's denial of asylum as time-barred under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), or the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture.