JOEL INDA-ULLOA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-74226 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAY 29 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOEL GUADALUPE INDA-ULLOA, Petitioner, No. 12-74226 Agency No. A089-111-603 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. Joel Guadalupe Inda-Ulloa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals 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 * 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). substantial evidence the factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review. Even if Inda-Ulloa established changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application, substantial evidence supports the agency s finding that his past experiences in Mexico, including being called derogatory names related to sexual orientation, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Halaim v. INS, 358 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2004) (discrimination does not constitute persecution). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency s finding that Inda-Ulloa failed to demonstrate a well founded fear of future persecution in Mexico based on either his homosexuality or his mental disability. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003) (fear of future harm is too speculative). Thus, IndaUlloa s asylum claim fails. Because Inda-Ulloa failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 12-74226

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.