MAINOR MARROQUIN V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 09-70850 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAINOR AMILCAR MARROQUIN; OFELIA MARROQUIN-PINEDA, No. 09-70850 Agency Nos. A072-544-152 A098-005-176 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Mainor Amilcar Marroquin and Ofelia Marroquin-Pineda, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of deportation and removal, and relief under * 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). the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th Cir. 2008), and deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that the death threats Marroquin experienced, even considered cumulatively, amounted to persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (9th Cir. 2000) (unfulfilled threats, without more, do not generally constitute persecution). Therefore, petitioners humanitarian asylum claim fails. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii). In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency s finding that, even if Marroquin established past persecution, the record reflects country conditions in Guatemala have changed such that petitioners no longer have a well-founded fear of future persecution by the Guatemalan army or guerrillas. See Sowe, 538 F.3d at 1286-87. Accordingly, petitioners asylum and withholding of deportation and removal claims fail. Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency s denial of CAT relief based on changed country conditions. See id, at 1288-89. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 09-70850
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.
