Jorge Iraheta-Osorio v. Eric Holder, Jr.

445 F. App'x 8
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJuly 21, 2011
Docket09-74015
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 445 F. App'x 8 (Jorge Iraheta-Osorio v. Eric Holder, Jr.) 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
Jorge Iraheta-Osorio v. Eric Holder, Jr., 445 F. App'x 8 (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

*9 MEMORANDUM **

Jorge Orlando Iraheta-Osorio, a native, and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even if credible, Iraheta-Oso-rio’s experiences in El Salvador did not rise to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (9th Cir.2000). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Iraheta-Osorio failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground, because he did not demonstrate that the gang members who sought to extort money from him and his family were motivated by anything other than an economic interest. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2004) (fears stemming from isolated criminal acts do not provide a basis for relief). Accordingly, Iraheta-Osorio’s asylum claim fails.

Because Iraheta-Osorio did not meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

Related

Doris Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Merrick Garland
69 F.4th 1012 (Ninth Circuit, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
445 F. App'x 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jorge-iraheta-osorio-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2011.