ANGEL MARIA SARAVIA and JAIRO DAVID SARAVIA 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ANGEL MARIA SARAVIA and JAIRO
DAVID SARAVIA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72674
Agency Nos. A073-395-470
A079-271-425
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Angel Maria Saravia, the lead petitioner, and her son Jairo David Saravia,
natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming the immigration judge’s denial
FILED
DEC 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-72674 2
of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence and will uphold the IJ’s determination unless the
evidence compels a contrary conclusion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
481 (1992). We deny the petition.
The lead petitioner alleges persecution arising from guerrilla activity in the
El Salvador civil war in the 1980s. Petitioner testified that she was not detained,
harmed, or directly threatened by the guerillas. Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that petitioner failed to establish past persecution. See Lim
v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s determination that petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of
future persecution in light of changed country conditions following the 1996 peace
accords. See Gonzales-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 997-98 (9th Cir.
2003).
Because lead petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she
necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioner has not established it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or

-- 2 of 3 --

09-72674 3
with the acquiescence of the El Salvador government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524
F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --