MICHAEL VASQUEZ-HERNANDEZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-73196 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL VASQUEZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, No. 12-73196 Agency No. A098-959-944 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Michael Vasquez-Hernandez, 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 * 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). review for substantial evidence the agency s factual findings. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. Vasquez-Hernandez contends gang members subjected him to threats, extortion, and an assault on account of his political opinion and his membership in a social group. Substantial evidence supports the BIA s determination that Vasquez-Hernandez failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See id. at 742-44, 746-47; Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) ( An alien s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground. ). Thus, Vasquez-Hernandez s asylum claim fails. Because Vasquez-Hernandez failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 12-73196

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.