Gilberto Meraz-Mendosa 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GILBERTO MERAZ-MENDOSA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71285
Agency No. A070-076-667
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.
Gilberto Meraz-Mendosa, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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
FILED
DEC 28 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-71285 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
Meraz-Mendosa testified he experienced problems in Honduras and fears
future harm due to his hearing disability, and he also testified he fears future harm
based on threats to family members related to the murder of two brothers-in-law
who had assisted with the prosecution of certain gang members.
With respect to his disability claim, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that Meraz-Mendosa’s experiences in Honduras did not
rise to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th
Cir. 2003) (discrimination and harassment did not compel past persecution
finding). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
Meraz-Mendosa did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution because the
harm he fears does not constitute persecution. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 962
(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (persecution does not include “mere discrimination, as
offensive as it may be”); Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1186 (mere economic disadvantage
does not rise to the level of persecution). Further, Meraz-Mendosa’s prior return to
Honduras from 1999-2004 undercuts his claim. See Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d
1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2008).

-- 2 of 3 --

10-71285 3
With respect to his family-based fear of harm, substantial evidence supports
the agency’s determination that Meraz-Mendosa did not establish eligibility for
asylum because he did not establish any further harm to family members. See
Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[w]here the claimed
group membership is the family, a family member’s continuing safety is an even
more persuasive factor in considering a petitioner’s well-founded fear”).
Accordingly, Meraz-Mendoza’s asylum claim fails.
Because Meraz-Mendosa failed to meet the lower standard of proof for
asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453
F.3d at 1190.
Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Meraz-Mendosa failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be
tortured at the instigation or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to
Honduras. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, we do not consider Meraz-Mendoza’s newly submitted medical
evidence because our review is limited to the administrative record underlying the
agency’s decision. See Fisher, 79 F.3d at 963.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --