German Guillen v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 550 F. App'x 432 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERMAN EUGENIO GUILLEN, a.k.a. No. 11-72681
German Morales,
Agency No. A028-663-884
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
German Eugenio Guillen, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, 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, Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for
review.
Guillen was conscripted into the Nicaraguan army in 1983 and served for
approximately six months before deserting. He fears returning due to his
desertion. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Guillen’s
conscription, experiences in the military, and his subsequent desertion do not
establish he was or will be harmed on account of a protected ground. See Barraza
Rivera v. INS, 913 F.2d 1443, 1450 (9th Cir.1990) (mandatory military service and
the possibility of punishment for desertion do not by themselves constitute
persecution); see also Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1187-88 (insufficient evidence
petitioner was required to engage in inhumane acts or would face
disproportionately severe punishment). Consequently, his asylum claim fails.
Because Guillen failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of
removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Guillen failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Nicaragua.
See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
2 11-72681
We deny any request Guillen makes to renew his motion for a stay of
removal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-72681