Case Name: Laura Yanet TORRES VELASQUEZ; Edgar Daniel Ortiz Monroy, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-25
Citations: 416 F. App'x 614
Docket Number: No. 06-75754
Parties: Laura Yanet TORRES VELASQUEZ; Edgar Daniel Ortiz Monroy, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 416
Pages: 614–615

Head Matter:
Laura Yanet TORRES VELASQUEZ; Edgar Daniel Ortiz Monroy, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75754.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 2011.
Filed Feb. 25, 2011.
H. Douglas Daniel, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carl Henry McIntyre, Jr., Assistant Director, OIL, Carmel Aileen Morgan, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, KLEINFELD, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Laura Yanet Torres Velasquez and her husband, Edgar Daniel Ortiz Monroy, petition for review of an order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Even assuming Torres Velasquez's and Monroy's testimony was credible, the immigration judge (IJ) permissibly found that any mistreatment they suffered did not have a nexus to a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
In addition, the IJ permissibly found that Torres Velasquez's and Monroy's mistreatment did not rise to the level of persecution. See, e.g., Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 960 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc). Finally, the IJ permissibly found that Velasquez's and Monroy's fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2).
For the above reasons, we deny the petition.
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.