Fidel Ventura Antonio v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 548 F. App'x 439 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 9 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FIDEL VENTURA ANTONIO, a.k.a. No. 12-70605
Anserno Jose-Hernandez,
Agency No. A078-491-293
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Fidel Ventura Antonio, 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 decision denying his application for withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual determinations, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.
2009), and review de novo claims of due process violations, Martinez-Rosas v.
Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
Ventura Antonio does not claim he suffered past persecution, but contends
he fears future persecution as an indigenous person in Mexico. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s denial of his withholding of removal claim because
Ventura Antonio failed to demonstrate either that he would face an individualized
risk of future persecution, see Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.
2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative), or that there is a pattern or
practice of persecution of indigenous people in Mexico, see Wakkary, 558 F.3d at
1060-61 (setting forth requirements for a pattern or practice claim). We reject
Ventura Antonio’s contentions that the BIA’s social group analysis was
insufficient and that the BIA failed to address his claim based on political opinion.
We also reject Ventura Antonio’s contention that the BIA violated due process by
imposing a new evidentiary requirement on him. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must show prejudice to prevail on a due process
challenge). Consequently, his withholding of removal claim fails.
2 12-70605
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT
protection because Ventura Antonio failed to establish it is more likely than not he
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in
Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). We reject
Ventura Antonio’s contention that the BIA failed to analyze his CAT claim
properly.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-70605