Gabriel Villasenor-Murga 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GABRIEL VILLASENOR-MURGA;
GUILLERMINA VILLASENOR;
AURELIO VILLASENOR-VERA;
GABRIEL VILLASENOR-VERA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74037
Agency Nos. A072-674-999
A072-674-998
A072-674-997
A072-674-996
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Gabriel Villasenor-Murga and his family, natives and citizens of Mexico,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying their application for
FILED
JUL 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74037 2
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, Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010), and
we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that a fundamental
change in circumstances, namely petitioners’ sale of their land, rebuts the
presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution based on their
participation in the land colony. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i); see also Tamang,
598 F.3d at 1093 (undisputed facts from petitioner’s own testimony regarding
change of circumstances constituted substantial evidence). Accordingly,
petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because Villasenor-Murga did not establish eligibility for asylum, he
necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Villasenor-Murga failed to show that it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured if returned to Mexico. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68
(9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Villasenor-Murga’s contention, the agency adequately
addressed his CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --