Rafael Romero v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Rafael Romero v. Eric Holder, Jr.

584 F. App'x 584

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 19, 2014

Docket11-73999

StatusUnpublished

This text of 584 F. App'x 584 (Rafael Romero 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

Rafael Romero v. Eric Holder, Jr., 584 F. App'x 584 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Rafael Romero, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Romero did not suffer harm rising to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000); see also Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc) (persecution is an “extreme concept”) (internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Romero did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.2010). We lack jurisdiction to review Romero’s unexhausted claim for humanitarian asylum. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). *585 Thus, Romero’s asylum claim fails. We deny Romero’s request for judicial notice of generalized conditions in Guatemala. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc). We also do not reach Romero’s contentions regarding the IJ’s adverse credibility findings. See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 658 n. 16 (9th Cir.2000) (review is limited to the grounds on which the BIA relied).

Because Romero failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Romero failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

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 **

Rafael Romero, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Romero did not suffer harm rising to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000); see also Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc) (persecution is an “extreme concept”) (internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Romero did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.2010). We lack jurisdiction to review Romero’s unexhausted claim for humanitarian asylum. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). *585 Thus, Romero’s asylum claim fails. We deny Romero’s request for judicial notice of generalized conditions in Guatemala. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc). We also do not reach Romero’s contentions regarding the IJ’s adverse credibility findings. See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 658 n. 16 (9th Cir.2000) (review is limited to the grounds on which the BIA relied).

Because Romero failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Romero failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

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)

584 F. App'x 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rafael-romero-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack