Case Name: Manuel De Jesus RAMOS-DELGADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-02
Citations: 328 F. App'x 464
Docket Number: No. 07-74395
Parties: Manuel De Jesus RAMOS-DELGADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 464–464

Head Matter:
Manuel De Jesus RAMOS-DELGADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74395.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009 .
Filed July 2, 2009.
Kaaren L. Barr, Esquire, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Allen W. Hausman, E squire, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Manuel de Jesus Ramos-Delgado, native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that Ramos-Delgado did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2001) (personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). Accordingly, Ramos-Delgado's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See id. at 1052.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.