Case Name: Rosendo MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-28
Citations: 361 F. App'x 714
Docket Number: No. 07-71572
Parties: Rosendo MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 714–714

Head Matter:
Rosendo MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71572.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Dec. 28, 2009.
Martha L. Cordoba, Esq., Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., Robert N. Maride, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, 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
Rosendo Martinez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's determination that Martinez failed to establish past persecution because the threats he faced do not rise to the level of persecution. See id. at 936.
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ's finding that Martinez does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution, particularly in light of Martinez' lack of active support for the guerillas or the government, and the signing of the 1996 Peace Accords. See Belayneh v. INS, 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir.2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.