Acevedo-Rivas v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Acevedo-Rivas v. Holder

419 F. App'x 719

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 8, 2011

Docket07-73313

StatusUnpublished

This text of 419 F. App'x 719 (Acevedo-Rivas v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acevedo-Rivas v. Holder, 419 F. App'x 719 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Vicente Alfredo Acevedo-Rivas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations, Vasquez-Z avala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Acevedo-Rivas did not suffer past persecution because the murder of Acevedo-Rivas’ father was not on account of a protected ground, see Gorm-ley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2004) (random criminal acts bore no nexus to a protected ground), and the isolated threat did not rise to the level of persecution, see Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that Acevedo-Rivias did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because he could internally relocate within El Salvador. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.

Because Aeevedo-Rivias failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Acevedo-Rivas’ contentions that the IJ applied the wrong standard when denying his CAT claim and he was not removable as charged because Acevedo-Rivas failed to exhaust these issues before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

*720 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Vicente Alfredo Acevedo-Rivas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations, Vasquez-Z avala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Acevedo-Rivas did not suffer past persecution because the murder of Acevedo-Rivas’ father was not on account of a protected ground, see Gorm-ley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2004) (random criminal acts bore no nexus to a protected ground), and the isolated threat did not rise to the level of persecution, see Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that Acevedo-Rivias did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because he could internally relocate within El Salvador. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.

Because Aeevedo-Rivias failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Acevedo-Rivas’ contentions that the IJ applied the wrong standard when denying his CAT claim and he was not removable as charged because Acevedo-Rivas failed to exhaust these issues before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

*720 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

419 F. App'x 719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acevedo-rivas-v-holder-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack