Luis Mendez v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-74763 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED FEB 25 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS MENDEZ, No. 08-74763 Petitioner, Agency No. A098-799-341 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 15, 2011 ** Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Luis Mendez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals 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 ( CAT ). We have jurisdiction * 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). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ s finding that Mendez failed to demonstrate that the Honduran men who attacked his daughter and threatened him did so on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (to reverse the agency s finding we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it ) (emphasis in original); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) ( [t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent one central reason for an asylum applicant s persecution ). Accordingly, Mendez s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005). Mendez has not raised any direct challenge to the agency s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-74763

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.