SALVADOR AGUILAR V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-70959 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED MAY 17 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SALVADOR AGUILAR, No. 10-70959 Petitioner, Agency No. A072-542-246 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 15, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, GRABER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Salvador Aguilar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum and withholding * 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). of removal. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184 85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that Aguilar failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of an actual or imputed political opinion or any other protected ground. See INS v. Elias Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 82 (1992) (holding that forced recruitment alone is not enough to show persecution on account of political opinion); Santos Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745 47 (9th Cir. 2008) (speculative fear of future gang activity and persecution does not serve as a basis for asylum relief); Cruz Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1028 30 (9th Cir. 2000) ( While the guerillas may have regarded Cruz as an informant, this is not akin to imputing a political belief to him. ). Because Aguilar failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of deportation. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir. 1995) PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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.
