Segovia-Arana, et al v. Holder, No. 07-72576 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 22 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GERMAN EXEQUIEL SEGOVIAARANA, No. 07-72576 Agency No. A098-112-447 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 16, 2010 ** Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. German Exequiel Segovia-Arana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). ( CAT ). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency s finding that Segovia-Arana s fear of harm based on personal retribution did not demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future harm on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-84 (1992). Because Segovia-Arana did not establish eligibility for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence also supports the agency s denial of CAT relief because Segovia-Arana failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to El Salvador. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 748. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 07-72576

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.