Alfredo Quiej Guix v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFREDO QUIEJ GUIX,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72523
Agency No. A070-223-731
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Alfredo Quiej Guix, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 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 (“CAT”). We have
FILED
DEC 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
Quiej Guix testified that guerrillas tried to forcibly recruit him in the 1980s,
and that he continues to fear they will harm him if he returns to Guatemala.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Quiej Guix failed to
establish that guerrillas targeted him on account of a protected ground. See INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (whether direct or circumstantial, some
evidence of a persecutor’s motive must be provided to establish eligibility for
asylum); see also Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 2000) (absent
evidence of some discriminatory purpose, efforts to forcibly recruit the applicant
do not compel a finding of persecution). Quiej Guix does not raise any arguments
in his opening brief regarding the BIA’s findings regarding his proposed social
group. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not supported by argument are deemed waived). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s finding that Quiej Guix did not establish a well-founded fear
of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)
(possibility of future persecution too speculative). Accordingly, Quiej Guix’s
aslyum claim fails.
2 12-72523

-- 2 of 3 --

Because Quiej Guix failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, his
claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Quiej Guix failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-72523

-- 3 of 3 --