Sonia Ninette Bolanos Ortiz; Juan Carlos Sopon Bolanos 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
PR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SONIA NINETTE BOLANOS ORTIZ;
JUAN CARLOS SOPON BOLANOS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72418
Agency Nos. A072-399-436
A072-681-488
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Sonia Ninette Bolanos Ortiz and her son, natives and citizens of Guatemala,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

PR/Research 07-72418 2
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that the threatening letters, the
visit by the military to lead petitioner’s home, and the loss of lead petitioner’s job
did not amount to past persecution. See id. at 936-37. Further, substantial
evidence supports the IJ’s finding that petitioners did not demonstrate a well-
founded fear of future persecution based on the length of time since lead petitioner
left Guatemala and evidence of country conditions in the record. See
Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2002) (When a petitioner
has not established past persecution, the agency may “rely on all relevant evidence
in the record, including a State Department report, in considering whether the
petitioner has demonstrated that there is good reason to fear future persecution.”).
Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
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 --

PR/Research 07-72418 3
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief, because
petitioners failed to establish that it is more likely than not that they would be
tortured if returned to Guatemala. See El Himri v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 932, 938 (9th
Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --