Edwin Mazariegos-Monterroso v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 507 F. App'x 745 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN ROBERTO MAZARIEGOS- No. 11-70303
MONTERROSO,
Agency No. A070-775-794
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Edwin Roberto Mazariegos-Monterroso, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
*
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).
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056
(9th Cir. 2009), and we review de novo claims of due process violations, Ibarra-
Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Mazariegos-
Monterroso failed to establish he suffered past persecution on account of a
protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84 (1992).
Because he did not establish past persecution, Mazariegos-Monterroso is not
eligible for humanitarian asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii). Further,
substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Mazariegos-Monterroso
failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Halim v. Holder,
590 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner “failed to make a compelling
showing of the requisite objective argument of a well-founded fear”); Molina-
Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2002) (petitioner failed to
demonstrate a reasonable fear of future persecution). Accordingly, his asylum
claim fails.
2 11-70303
Because Mazariegos-Monterroso did not establish his eligibility for asylum,
it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1080 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Mazariegos-Monterroso failed to establish it is more likely than not he
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan
government upon return. See Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir.
2009).
We do not reach Mazariegos-Monterroso’s voluntary departure arguments
because they were raised for the first time in his reply brief. See Bazuaye v. INS,
79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
Finally, we reject Mazariegos-Monterroso’s due process contentions. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to
prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-70303