Case Name: Rosendo SONTAY-DELEON, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-23
Citations: 79 F. App'x 286
Docket Number: No. 02-73298; Agency No. A77-440-521
Parties: Rosendo SONTAY-DELEON, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 79
Pages: 286–287

Head Matter:
Rosendo SONTAY-DELEON, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-73298.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 7, 2003.
Decided Oct. 23, 2003.
Before GOODWIN and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge.
The Honorable Robert E. Jones, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The Immigration Judge (IJ) found that Sontay-DeLeon did not qualify for withholding of removal-Sontay-DeLeon did not prove that, if deported to Guatemala, there is a clear probability that he will be persecuted on account of his race or imputed political opinion. Neither the incident between Sontay-DeLeon and the soldiers in the mountains nor the muggings in Guatemala City compels the conclusion that Sontay-DeLeon suffered persecution "on account of' his race or his imputed political opinion, and substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the IJ's deci sion.
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.
. See Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 242(b)(4)(B) (8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)); Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that eligibility for withholding of removal requires a "showing that it is more likely than not that the alien will be persecuted if deported"),
. INA § 241(b)(3) (8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)); See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).
. See Cedano-Viera v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1062, 1063 n. 1 (9th Cir.2003) (explaining that under the Board of Immigration Appeals' affirmance-without-opinion procedure, "the IJ's decision is the final agency decision for purposes of judicial review"); 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7)(h), (iii).