Case Name: Apolinario RAMIREZ-MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-01
Citations: 284 F. App'x 433
Docket Number: No. 05-73424
Parties: Apolinario RAMIREZ-MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 284
Pages: 433–434

Head Matter:
Apolinario RAMIREZ-MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73424.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2008.
Filed July 1, 2008.
Jorge I. Rodriguez-Choi, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Audrey B. Hemesath, Esq., San Francisco, CA, USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent.
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Apolinario Ramirez-Mendez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evi dence, see Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1181 n. 4 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the denial of Ramirez-Mendez's withholding of removal claim because he failed to establish that the harm he suffered rose to the level of persecution, see id. at 1182 (concluding that harassment, threats, and one beating unconnected with any particular threat did not compel finding of past persecution), or that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted in the future, see Rostomian v. INS, 210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir.2000) (denying relief because widespread random violence or general civil strife is insufficient to establish well-founded fear of persecution).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Ramirez-Mendez's remaining contentions relating to family membership and political opinion.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.