CORNELIO C. CASTRO-CABRERA; MIRIA YOLANDA MENDEZ- JOLOMOCOX, a.k.a. Nancy Celis 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CORNELIO C. CASTRO-CABRERA;
MIRIA YOLANDA MENDEZ-
JOLOMOCOX, a.k.a. Nancy Celis,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72923
Agency Nos. A074-257-919
A095-303-184
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Cornelio C. Castro-Cabrera and Miria Yolanda Mendez-Jolomocox, natives
and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
FILED
DEC 28 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-72923 2
denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 481 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Castro-
Cabrera failed to establish the harm he suffered or fears is on account of any
protected ground. See id. at 482-84. Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s determination that, even if Mendez-Jolomocox’s asylum application was
timely filed, she failed to establish a protected ground represented one central
reason for the harm she suffered or fears in Guatemala. See id.; see also Molina-
Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal retribution is not
persecution on account of a protected ground). Accordingly, we deny the petition
as to petitioners’ asylum claims. See Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th
Cir. 2001) (“Asylum generally is not available to victims of civil strife, unless they
are singled out on account of a protected ground.”).
Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

08-72923 3
Finally, petitioners fail to raise any substantive challenge to the denial of
their CAT claims. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th
Cir. 1996) (issues not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed
waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --