Raul Castellanos-Gonzalez; Alejandra Maria Gularte De Castellanos; 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).
PR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL CASTELLANOS-GONZALEZ;
ALEJANDRA MARIA GULARTE DE
CASTELLANOS; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74792
Agency Nos. A098-445-312
A098-445-313
A098-445-314
A098-445-315
A098-445-316
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Raul Castellanos-Gonzalez (“Raul”), his wife Alejandra Maria Gularte De
Castellanos, and their three children, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition
FILED
FEB 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

PR/Research 06-74792 2
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application
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, Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1997), and we
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that petitioners did not
establish past persecution on account of a protected ground, because they did not
establish that the people who attempted to kidnap Raul and threatened him over the
phone actually imputed a political opinion to him. See id. at 1489-91. Substantial
evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that petitioners did not establish an
objectively reasonable fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground.
See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that
personal retribution is not persecution). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim
fails.
Because petitioners did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily
follows that they did not satisfy 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 06-74792 3
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of petitioners’ CAT claim
because they failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not they will be tortured if
returned to Guatemala. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir.
2007).
Finally, petitioners’ contention that the BIA violated their due process rights
by providing a “rote recitation” of the IJ’s opinion and by failing to consider their
individual situation is not supported by the record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to establish a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --