Casasola Ipina v. Gonzales
This text of 176 F. App'x 773 (Casasola Ipina v. Gonzales) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Marco Vinicio Casasola Ipina, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se [774]*774for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming, without opinion, an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing due process claims de novo, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003), and the IJ’s factual findings for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence- supports the IJ’s determination that Casasola Ipina did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on one of the statutorily protected grounds. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1) and 1101(a)(42)(A). Accordingly, Casasola Ipina has failed to establish eligibility for asylum.
Casasola Ipina’s contention that the BIA’s summary affirmance of the IJ’s decision violates due process is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 848, 850-51 (9th Cir.2003).
Casasola Ipina’s remaining contentions are without merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
176 F. App'x 773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casasola-ipina-v-gonzales-ca9-2006.