Gonzalez-Ramirez, et al v. Holder, No. 08-70441 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JAN 18 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GERBER GONZALEZ-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, No. 08-70441 Agency No. A095-650-930 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 10, 2011 ** Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Gerber Gonzalez-Ramirez, native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 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. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA s conclusion that Gonzalez-Ramirez failed to demonstrate past persecution on account of a protected ground because he could only speculate as to why his father was killed and the record does not compel the conclusion that he was threatened on account of a political opinion or his membership in a particular social group. See id. at 483-84. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA s conclusion that Gonzalez-Ramirez failed to establish he has a well-founded fear of future persecution because he can reasonably relocate to Guatemala City. See Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Gonzalez-Ramirez s asylum claim fails. Because Gonzalez-Ramirez 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). The IJ did not expressly address Gonzalez-Ramirez s CAT claim. However, any error was harmless because the agency s finding that Gonzalez-Ramirez can relocate safely is supported by substantial evidence. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 2001) (evidence the petitioner can relocate to avoid 2 08-70441 torture is relevant to whether the petitioner has satisfied his burden for CAT relief); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 08-70441
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.
