Edgar Rivera-Zuniga v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            OCT 6 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    EDGAR ARNOLDO RIVERA-ZUNIGA,                      No. 10-71384
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A071-580-348
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted September 27, 2011 **
    Before:        SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    Edgar Arnoldo Rivera-Zuniga, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
    for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
    appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
    withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,
    
    542 F.3d 738
    , 742 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review de novo claims of due process
    violations, Colmenar v. INS, 
    210 F.3d 967
    , 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the
    petition for review.
    Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Rivera-Zuniga failed to
    establish a clear probability of future persecution because he failed to show the
    harm he and his family suffered was on account of a protected ground. See INS v.
    Elias-Zacarias, 
    502 U.S. 478
    , 481-82 (1992). Accordingly, his withholding of
    removal claim fails.
    In addition, we reject Rivera-Zuniga’s conclusory contention the BIA
    violated his due process rights by failing to adequately evaluate his claim. See
    Lata v. INS, 
    204 F.3d 1241
    , 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on due
    process claim).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    10-71384