Case Name: Virgilio GUERRA-MOLINA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-20
Citations: 474 F. App'x 669
Docket Number: No. 10-71162
Parties: Virgilio GUERRA-MOLINA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 669–670

Head Matter:
Virgilio GUERRA-MOLINA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71162.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 20, 2012.
Seroj Meserkhani, Esquire, Law Offices of Meserkhani & Bagramian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Daniel I. Smulow, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, 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
Virgilio Guerra-Molina, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that even if Guerra-Molina established past persecution, the government rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution with evidence he could reasonably relocate within Guatemala to avoid harm. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir.2003) (presumption of well-founded fear can be rebutted if the government can show the applicant could reasonably be expected to relocate). Accordingly, Guerra-Molina's asylum claim fails.
Because Guerra-Molina failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of CAT relief because Guerra-Molina failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured and failed to present substantial grounds for believing he would be unable to live elsewhere in Guatemala safely. See Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir.2004); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.