Julio Cesar Hernandez 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).
KV/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIO CESAR HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 03-70273
Agency No. A071-577-188
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Julio Cesar Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
FILED
MAR 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KV/Research 03-70273 2
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that, even if credible,
Hernandez failed to meet his burden of demonstrating asylum eligibility because
the record does not compel the conclusion that the threats Hernandez received
amounted to harm rising to the level of past persecution, see Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d
929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000), or that he established an objectively reasonable fear of
future persecution, see Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.
Because Hernandez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily
follows that he failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Hernandez’s contention that the IJ’s alleged bias violated due process fails
because he did not demonstrate prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000) (requiring prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process
claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --