Moises Roverto Rivera-Najaro 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MOISES ROVERTO RIVERA-NAJARO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70294
Agency No. A097-742-527
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Moises Roverto Rivera-Najaro, 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 and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
JAN 18 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-70294 2
substantial evidence factual findings. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 &
n.1 (1992). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the threats by
Rivera-Najaro’s mother’s ex-boyfriend against Rivera-Najaro did not rise to the
level of past persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000).
Substantial evidence also supports the finding that Rivera-Najaro does not have a
well-founded fear of future persecution because his mother, who suffered physical
harm from her ex-boyfriend, has not encountered any problems on her return visits
to Guatemala. See Rodriguez-Rivera v. INS, 848 F.2d 998, 1006 (9th Cir. 1988)
(similarly-situated family members living in El Salvador undercut petitioner’s
claim of a well-founded fear of future persecution). Further, substantial evidence
supports the finding that Rivera-Najaro does not have a well-founded fear of future
persecution based on his father’s former involvement with the civil patrol because
there is no evidence he would be targeted specifically. See Halim v. Holder, 590
F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 2009) (the record does not compel a ten percent chance of
future persecution). Accordingly, Rivera-Najaro’s asylum claim fails.
Because Rivera failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it

-- 2 of 3 --

08-70294 3
follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --