Case Name: Martin Francisco MATIAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-29
Citations: 584 F. App'x 358
Docket Number: No. 10-73553
Parties: Martin Francisco MATIAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 358–359

Head Matter:
Martin Francisco MATIAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73553.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2014.
Filed July 29, 2014.
Douglas D. Nelson, Esquire, Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Imran- Raza Zaidi, Trial, Robert Michael Stalzer, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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
Martin Francisco Matías, 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 and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that, even if credible, Matías failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution by guerrillas on account of his imputed political opinion and/or membership in a particular social group. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (petitioner must provide direct or circumstantial evidence of motive). Thus, Matias's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir.2001).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.