Roberto Escobar-Mejia, a.k.a. Roberto Escobar-Mejilla 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROBERTO ESCOBAR-MEJIA, a.k.a.
Roberto Escobar-Mejilla,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73027
Agency No. A079-029-671
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Roberto Escobar-Mejia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding
FILED
APR 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 09-73027
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
Escobar-Mejia testified that he was shot at one time and verbally threatened
while working as a bus driver in Guatemala. Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s finding that Escobar-Mejia failed to establish past persecution or a well-
founded fear of persecution on account of an actual or imputed political opinion or
any other protected ground. See Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865-66 (9th Cir.
2001) (no nexus between rape by guerillas and a protected ground). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Escobar-Mejia failed to establish
that the government is unwilling or unable to protect him. See Nahrvani v.
Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (German police took reports and
investigated incidents, but were unable to solve the crimes). Accordingly,
Escobar-Mejia’s asylum claim fails.
Because Escobar-Mejia failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum,
his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at
1190.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 09-73027
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Escobar-Mejia failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --