Rolando Ochoa-Acuna 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROLANDO OCHOA-ACUNA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74781
Agency No. A070-773-722
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Rolando Ochoa-Acuna, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
FILED
JUN 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-74781 2
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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 agency’s determination that Ochoa-Acuna
did not establish past persecution based on his participation in a civil defense patrol
because he failed to show a nexus between the harm he and his family suffered and
one of the statutorily protected grounds. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487
(9th Cir. 1997) (persecution by anti-government guerillas may not, “from that fact
alone, be presumed to be ‘on account of’ political opinion”). Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s determination that Ochoa-Acuna failed to establish a
well-founded fear based upon his ability to reasonably relocate within Guatemala,
see 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1), and changed country conditions following the 1996
peace accords, see Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 997-98 (9th Cir.
2003).
Because Ochoa-Acuna did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily
follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief

-- 2 of 3 --

07-74781 3
because Ochoa-Acuna failed to show that it is more likely than not that he would
be tortured if removed to Guatemala. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049,
1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --