Luis Mendez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LUIS MENDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74763
Agency No. A098-799-341
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011**
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Luis Mendez, a native and citizen of Honduras, 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”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
FEB 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74763 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Mendez failed to
demonstrate that the Honduran men who attacked his daughter and threatened him
did so on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
481 n.1 (1992) (to reverse the agency’s finding “we must find that the evidence not
only supports that conclusion, but compels it”) (emphasis in original); see also
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act
requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum
applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, Mendez’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
Mendez has not raised any direct challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT
relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
supported by argument are deemed abandoned).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --