Erick Rivary Catalan-Del Cid v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERICK RIVARY CATALAN-DEL CID,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74574
Agency No. A097-831-362
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Erick Rivary Catalan-Del Cid, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”).
FILED
JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74574 2
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the petition
for review.
Petitioner contends guerillas kidnaped his son based on petitioner’s political
opinion or his membership in a particular social group. Substantial evidence
supports the IJ’s findings that petitioner failed to establish this incident occurred on
account of a protected ground. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1490-91 (9th
Cir. 1997) (persecution by anti-government guerillas may not, “from that fact
alone, be presumed to be ‘on account of’ political opinion”). As this incident is the
only basis for petitioner’s claim of past persecution and of a well-founded fear of
future persecution, his asylum claim fails. See id.
Because Catalan-Del Cid did not establish eligibility for asylum, it follows
that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief
because petitioner failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured if removed to Guatemala. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-
68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --