Condor-Gomez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
This text of 33 F. App'x 348 (Condor-Gomez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service) 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
Luis Alberto Condor-Gomez, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions pro se for review of a final decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing the appeal of the immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction to review a final order of the BIA pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a),1 and we deny the petition.
We review the BIA’s factual findings, including whether a petitioner has demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, for substantial evidence, and we uphold the BIA ruling unless the evidence compels a contrary result. Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the Shining Path’s harassment of Condor-Gomez and his family does not amount to past persecution on account of imputed political opinion, see Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995), and that he does not have an objective fear of future persecution, see Mendez-Efrain v. INS, 813 F.2d 279, 282 (9th Cir.1987). Accordingly, Condor-Gomez failed to establish eligibility for asylum and therefore failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. See Pedro-Mateo, 224 F.3d at 1150.
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 may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
33 F. App'x 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/condor-gomez-v-immigration-naturalization-service-ca9-2002.