William Ramos-Landaverde 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
WILLIAM RAMOS-LANDAVERDE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74839
Agency No. A070-810-043
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
William Ramos-Landaverde, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
JAN 04 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-74839 2
(“CAT”), cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central
American Relief Act (“NACARA”), and Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”). We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings, Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th Cir. 2008), and
review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings,
Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Ramos-Landaverde
failed to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on
account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83
(1992) (even if the petitioner holds a political opinion, he still has to establish
targeting based on it). Accordingly, Ramos-Landaverde’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir.
2005).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Ramos-
Landaverde did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with
the consent or acquiescence of the Salvadoran government. See Villegas v.
Mukasey, 523 F.3d 984, 989 (9th Cir. 2008).

-- 2 of 3 --

07-74839 3
The BIA did not err in finding Ramos-Landaverde failed to meet his burden
of demonstrating eligibility for cancellation of removal under NACARA because
he provided no evidence that he was a registered ABC class member. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1240.61(a)(1). The BIA also did not err in finding Ramos-Landaverde ineligible
for TPS because he provided no evidence he filed an application for TPS. See 8
C.F.R. § 244.2.
Finally, we reject Ramos Landaverde’s due process contentions that the BIA
failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision and that the IJ did not
allow him to file an application for cancellation of removal because they are belied
by the record. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971-72 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and prejudice to establish a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --