Wenceslao Colderon-Monzon 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
WENCESLAO COLDERON-MONZON,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73967
Agency No. A098-653-782
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Wenceslao Colderon-Monzon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
NOV 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-73967 2
(“CAT”), and of a BIA’s order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008), and we
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. Gonzales,
491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Colderon-Monzon
failed to establish that his family membership was or would be one central reason
for the harm he experienced and fears in Guatemala. See Parussimova v. Mukasey,
555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected
ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). In
the absence of a nexus to a protected ground, his withholding of removal claim
fails. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection
because Colderon-Monzon failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiesce of a public official in
Guatemala. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 748. Accordingly, his CAT claim also
fails.
In addition, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Colderon-
Monzon’s motion to reopen. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

11-73967 3
2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is
“arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --