Case Name: Evelio Humberto MARTINEZ-ESCALANTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-28
Citations: 489 F. App'x 224
Docket Number: No. 11-73664
Parties: Evelio Humberto MARTINEZ-ESCALANTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 489
Pages: 224–224

Head Matter:
Evelio Humberto MARTINEZ-ESCALANTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-73664.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Dec. 28, 2012.
Evelio Humberto Martinez-Escalante, Lancaster, CA, pro se.
OIL, Richard Zanfardino, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Evelio Humberto Martinez-Escalante, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Martinez-Escalante fears being targeted in Guatemala by unidentified individuals who shot his brother, a former police officer. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's decision that, even if credible, Martinez-Escalante failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See id. at 977 (petitioner "failed to make a compelling showing of the requisite objective argument of a well-founded fear"). Consequently, his asylum claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.