Mejia, et al v. Holder, No. 04-76256 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JAN 20 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BERNABE GONZALEZ MEJIA; et al., Petitioners, No. 04-76256 Agency Nos. v. A075-479-311 A075-479-312 A075-479-313 A075-479-314 ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. MEMORANDUM * On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 10, 2011 ** Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Bernabe Gonzalez Mejia and his family, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. * 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). We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ s finding that petitioners failed to demonstrate the incidents that happened in Guatemala were on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (to reverse the agency s decision we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it ) (emphasis in original). Thus, contrary to petitioners assertion, they are not entitled to a presumption of future fear because they failed to establish past persecution on account of a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). Further, the record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481 n.1; Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018. Accordingly, petitioners asylum claim fails. Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 04-76256
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.
