Garcia Benitez v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Garcia Benitez v. Holder

367 F. App'x 785

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 23, 2010

Docket07-73866

StatusUnpublished

This text of 367 F. App'x 785 (Garcia Benitez 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

Garcia Benitez v. Holder, 367 F. App'x 785 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Alejandro Garcia Benitez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

The opening brief does not challenge the agency’s finding that Garcia-Benitez’s asylum application was time-barred.

We reject Garcia-Benitez’s contention that he was persecuted on account of his membership in a protected class. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 945-46 (9th Cir.2007); see also Sanchez-Trujillo v. INS, 801 F.2d 1571, 1573, 1576-77 (9th Cir.1986). Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s findings that Garcia-Benitez failed to provide an objective basis for future fear of persecution, see Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1065-66 (9th Cir.2008), and that Garcia-Benitez could relocate within Mexico, see 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(3)(i) (in the absence of past persecution, petitioner bears the burden of showing that internal relocation is unreasonable).

Because there is no evidence that he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a government official, Garcia-Benitez has not demonstrated his eligibility for CAT relief. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid *787 ed by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Alejandro Garcia Benitez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

The opening brief does not challenge the agency’s finding that Garcia-Benitez’s asylum application was time-barred.

We reject Garcia-Benitez’s contention that he was persecuted on account of his membership in a protected class. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 945-46 (9th Cir.2007); see also Sanchez-Trujillo v. INS, 801 F.2d 1571, 1573, 1576-77 (9th Cir.1986). Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s findings that Garcia-Benitez failed to provide an objective basis for future fear of persecution, see Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1065-66 (9th Cir.2008), and that Garcia-Benitez could relocate within Mexico, see 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(3)(i) (in the absence of past persecution, petitioner bears the burden of showing that internal relocation is unreasonable).

Because there is no evidence that he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a government official, Garcia-Benitez has not demonstrated his eligibility for CAT relief. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid *787 ed by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

367 F. App'x 785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-benitez-v-holder-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack