Case Name: Norvi Arnoldo ORTIZ MARROQUIN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-20
Citations: 98 F. App'x 680
Docket Number: No. 02-74173
Parties: Norvi Arnoldo ORTIZ MARROQUIN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 98
Pages: 680–681

Head Matter:
Norvi Arnoldo ORTIZ MARROQUIN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-74173.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 10, 2004.
Decided May 20, 2004.
Norvi Arnoldo Ortiz Marroquin, Wilmington, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Norvi Amoldo Ortiz Marroquin, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 338-39 (9th Cir.1995), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Ortiz did not meet his burden of proving his asylum claim because Ortiz presented inconsistent evidence about whether Guatemalan authorities actually harmed him. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003). The BIA properly denied all of Ortiz's requests for relief because those requests were based on the statements that the BIA determined were not credible. See id. at 1157.
Ortiz's remaining contentions lack merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW 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.