Case Name: Heberto Eli HERNANDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-09
Citations: 141 F. App'x 628
Docket Number: No. 03-70204
Parties: Heberto Eli HERNANDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 628–629

Head Matter:
Heberto Eli HERNANDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-70204.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 6, 2005.
Decided Aug. 9, 2005.
Susan E. Hill, Esq., Hill & Piibe, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Margot L. Nadel, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BROWNING, FISHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Heberto Eli Hernandez and his family, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming the immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying them asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and we deny the petition.
Even assuming Hernandez's testimony was credible, there is insufficient evidence to compel the conclusion that Hernandez's subjectively genuine fear of returning to Guatemala is objectively reasonable. See Aguilera-Cota v. U.S. INS, 914 F.2d 1375, 1378 (9th Cir.1990). It has been ten years since Hernandez and his family left Guatemala, and six years since anyone has sought information regarding Hernandez's whereabouts. There is no evidence that incidents similar to those Hernandez experienced have continued to occur.
Because Hernandez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Chen v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 611, 617 (9th Cir.2004). Hernandez also failed to meet the standard for CAT relief. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).
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.