Menchu v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Menchu v. Mukasey

301 F. App'x 734

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 26, 2008

DocketNo. 05-74761

StatusPublished

This text of 301 F. App'x 734 (Menchu v. Mukasey) 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

Menchu v. Mukasey, 301 F. App'x 734 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Eduardo Menchu, a native and citizen of Guatemala, and his wife, a native and citizen of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001), we deny the petition.

Menchu does not contest the agency’s conclusion that his asylum application was time-barred.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Menchu failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067, 1079 (9th Cir.2004). The record does not compel the conclusion that the incidents involving his brothers or his own 1993 attack were on account of a protected ground. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1486-87 (9th Cir.1997).

The continued safety of Menchu’s family members in Guatemala and the lack of threats or harm to any of them, or to petitioner, since 1996 further supports the BIA’s conclusion. See Hakeem, 273 F.3d at 816; see also Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir.2008) (“Where the claimed group membership is the family, a family member’s continuing safety is an even more persuasive factor in considering a petitioner’s well-founded fear.”).

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Eduardo Menchu, a native and citizen of Guatemala, and his wife, a native and citizen of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001), we deny the petition.

Menchu does not contest the agency’s conclusion that his asylum application was time-barred.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Menchu failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067, 1079 (9th Cir.2004). The record does not compel the conclusion that the incidents involving his brothers or his own 1993 attack were on account of a protected ground. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1486-87 (9th Cir.1997).

The continued safety of Menchu’s family members in Guatemala and the lack of threats or harm to any of them, or to petitioner, since 1996 further supports the BIA’s conclusion. See Hakeem, 273 F.3d at 816; see also Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir.2008) (“Where the claimed group membership is the family, a family member’s continuing safety is an even more persuasive factor in considering a petitioner’s well-founded fear.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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)

301 F. App'x 734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/menchu-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack