Juan Carlos Nunez-Saldana 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JUAN CARLOS NUNEZ-SALDANA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73019
Agency No. A078-535-242
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.
Juan Carlos Nunez-Saldana, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
APR 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-73019 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary
v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even if Nunez-
Saldana’s asylum application was timely, his one-time beating by political
opponents and subsequent harassment did not rise to the level of persecution. See
Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009) (incidents including being
“beaten by a mob of rioters” did not rise to the level of past persecution).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Nunez-Saldana failed
to establish an objective basis for a well-founded fear of future persecution. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner’s claims “too
speculative to be credited as a basis for fear of future persecution”). Accordingly,
Nunez-Saldana’s asylum claim fails.
Because Nunez-Saldana failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Nahrvani v. Gonzalez, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Nunez-Saldana failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured

-- 2 of 3 --

08-73019 3
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Peru. See
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --