106 F.3d 408: Ricardo Martinez-martinez, Petitioner, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 106 F.3d 408
Submitted Dec. 9, 1996.*Decided Dec. 24, 1996
Petition to Review a Decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS No. A 42 244 628.
INS
DENIED
Before: REINHARDT and RYMER, Circuit Judges and TANNER, District Judge.***
MEMORANDUM**
Petitioner Ricardo Martinez-Martinez was ordered to show cause why he should not be deported after conviction for a crime of moral turpitude within five years of entry into this country. He applied for the relief of asylum and withholding of deportation. The Immigration Judge found him deportable and denied him relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. We deny the petition for review.1
Martinez-Martinez failed to demonstrate that "persecution is a reasonable possibility." INS v. Cardoza Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 440 (quoting INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 424-25. (1984)). Martinez-Martinez must show a danger of individualized harm; not simply "general conditions of strife." Rebello-Jovel v. INS, 794 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir.1986). Martinez-Martinez claims that because he was forced to fight in the anti-government FMLN for two years as a teenager, if he were to return to El Salvador he would be viewed by others as a leftist. Put another way, Martinez-Martinez is claiming that he would be persecuted based upon the political opinion that would be imputed to him by others. See Desir v. Ilchert, 840 F.2d 723, 728 (9th Cir.1988). He has not, however, provided any evidence that anyone ever sought in the past or has been attempting recently to determine his individual whereabouts or has at any time shown any interest in seeking retribution against him individually. To the contrary, in his asylum hearing he revealed that recent talks with his sister and father indicated that no one has inquired about him. In short, Martinez-Martinez has not demonstrated that he has a well-founded fear of persecution based upon political opinion.2 INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1 (1992).
Accordingly, we DENY the petition for review.
We assume for purposes of this decision that we have jurisdiction over the petition to review
Although petitioner did not raise the issue of withholding of deportation in his brief to this court, we note that the standard for this form of relief is more rigorous than that for asylum. See INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984) (holding that eligibility for the relief of withholding of deportation is the "clear probability of persecution" standard)
