Santos Rodas De Leon; Marcela Julieta Arriaga- Santizo 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANTOS RODAS DE LEON;
MARCELA JULIETA ARRIAGA-
SANTIZO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74859
Agency Nos. A098-429-775
A098-429-776
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Santos Rodas De Leon and his wife, natives and citizens of Guatemala,
petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
FILED
APR 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74859 2
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992), and we review de novo questions of law,
Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274-75 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition
for review.
Rodas De Leon fears persecution from the National Advancement Party
based on his uncle’s political activities. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
conclusion that Rodas De Leon did not establish that he was or would be
persecuted on account of an actual or imputed political opinion. See Sangha v.
INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1489-90 (9th Cir. 1997); Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166,
1170-72 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Ochoa, 406 F.3d at 1172.
Finally, petitioners’ due process claim that the BIA failed to consider all of
their evidence fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (no due
process violation where no prejudice).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --