Javier Gonzales-Gonzales, a.k.a Francisco Javier Palomino Aguero 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JAVIER GONZALES-GONZALES, a.k.a
Francisco Javier Palomino Aguero,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71122
Agency No. A098-916-985
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Javier Gonzales-Gonzales, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
FILED
JUL 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-71122 2
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo its legal
conclusions. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the threats Gonzales-
Gonzales and his mother received do not rise to the level of persecution. See Lim
v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotations omitted)
(“Threats standing alone. . . constitute past persecution in only a small category of
cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual
suffering or harm.”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion
that Gonzales-Gonzales failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based
on these threats. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir.
2006) (applicant’s vague and conclusory allegations of fear for his life upon return
to Mexico insufficient to support a finding of a well-founded fear of future
persecution). Accordingly, Gonzales-Gonzales’ asylum claim fails.
Because Gonzales-Gonzales failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
necessarily fails to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

10-71122 3
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Gonzales-Gonzales failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured
by or with the acquiescence of a government official if returned to Peru. See
Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747-48.
Finally, we reject Gonzales-Gonzales’ contentions that the BIA violated his
due process rights by both failing to properly evaluate his arguments on appeal
from the IJ, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error
and prejudice to prevail on due process claim), and by assigning his case to a one-
member panel, see Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir.
2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --