Carlos G. Flores-Pacheco v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS G. FLORES-PACHECO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70733
Agency No. A075-251-422
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.
Carlos G. Flores-Pacheco, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
DEC 4 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 2 --

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.
Flores-Pacheco contends the agency erred in finding he did not have an
objective basis to fear persecution based on his father’s past political activity.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Flores-Pacheco
failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected
ground. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2002)
(insufficient evidence to show reasonable fear of future persecution); see also
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act
“requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum
applicant’s persecution”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“[a]n alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or
random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus,
Flores-Pacheco’s asylum claim fails.
Because Flores-Pacheco 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.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-70733 2

-- 2 of 2 --