Aristeo Escobar Mejia; Minga Escobar 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ARISTEO ESCOBAR MEJIA; MINGA
ESCOBAR,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71101
Agency Nos. A099-890-135
A099-890-136
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012**
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Aristeo Escobar Mejia and Minga Escobar, natives and citizens of
Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
FILED
AUG 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-71101 2
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 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, Ochoa v. Gonzales,
406 F.3d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
Escobar Mejia contends that a rival bus business targeted him on account of
his family membership. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that,
assuming without deciding Escobar Mejia’s family could qualify as a particular
social group, Escobar Mejia has not shown his family or any other statutorily
protected ground was or will be one central reason for any persecution he suffered
or might suffer in Guatemala. See 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”). We reject Escobar Mejia’s
contention that the BIA required that family be “the central reason” because it is
belied by the record. Because Escobar Mejia has not shown the harm he suffered
or fears is on account of a protected ground, his asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Ochoa, 406 F.3d at 1172.

-- 2 of 3 --

10-71101 3
Finally, we lack jurisdiction over any challenge to the denial of CAT relief
because Escobar Mejia did not raise this issue to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --