Angel Chavez-Joaquin, et al v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-71414 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 15 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANGEL CHAVEZ-JOAQUIN and ERIKA DINA PORTILLO-TORRES a/k/a/ ERIKA DINA PORTILLO a/k/a ERIKA PORTILLO, No. 09-71414 Agency Nos. A099-577-166 and A099-577-168 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 8, 2010 ** Seattle, Washington Before: M. SMITH and THOMAS, Circuit Judges; COLLINS, District Judge*** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge, in and for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. Substantial evidence supports the determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) that petitioners did not establish eligibility for asylum. Chavez-Joaquin has not established that any persecution he suffered in El Salvador was on account of a protected ground. See Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir. 2000) ( Persecution occurring because a person is a current member of a police force . . . is not on account of one of the grounds enumerated in the Act. (emphasis added) (citing Aguilar-Escobar v. INS, 136 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 1998))). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA s determination that petitioners have not demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution. Without more, the threats Chavez-Joaquin allegedly received from gang members do not rise to the requisite level for asylum eligibility. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). Having failed to establish asylum eligibility, petitioners do not satisfy the higher standard required for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 658 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA s denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture, given that only a single, unsubstantiated assertion presented to the BIA refers to the likelihood of torture. See Villegas v. Mukasey, 2 523 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2008) ("An applicant for CAT relief has the burden 'to establish that it is more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed.'" (quoting Al-Saher v. INS, 268 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2001)) (alteration in original)). PETITION DENIED. 3

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.