Case Name: Giovanni Guerrero SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-15
Citations: 204 F. App'x 711
Docket Number: Nos. 04-71122, 05-70990
Parties: Giovanni Guerrero SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 204
Pages: 711–713

Head Matter:
Giovanni Guerrero SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 04-71122, 05-70990.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 14, 2006.
Filed Dec. 15, 2006.
Reeves & Associates, APLC, San Francisco, CA, Nancy E. Miller, Esq., Robert L. Reeves & Associates, Cynthia J. Scribe, Esq., Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Marion E. Guy-ton, Esq., Mark C. Walters, Esq., Mary Jane Candaux, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Circuit Judge, FARRIS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In this consolidated proceeding, petitioner Giovanni Guerrero Santos petitions for review of the BIA's denial of asylum and withholding of removal, denial of a motion to reopen visa adjustment proceedings, and affirmance of the INS's decision to revoke a previously approved visa.
Petitioner's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail because he cannot show that fear of future persecution on account of his former political activities is objectively reasonable. Though one member of his former political group was killed, it is far from clear that he was killed on account of his political affiliation, much less by government officials or forces the government is unwilling or unable to control. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir.2004).
The dispositive issue on petitioner's two remaining claims is whether he is eligible for relief in light of his prior sham marriage. By statute, relief is barred where a noncitizen has been a party to any sham marriage in the past, regardless of whether his current marriage is bona fide. See 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c). Petitioner was party to such a marriage.
The petitions for review must therefore be denied.
Petitions for review are 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.