Adela R. Picado 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ADELA R. PICADO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74575
Agency No. A073-976-591
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Adela R. Picado, native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding
FILED
SEP 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74575 2
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). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the threats and
mistreatment Picado suffered do not rise to the level of persecution. See Lim v.
INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336,
340 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although a reasonable factfinder could have found this
incident sufficient to establish past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder
would be compelled to do so.”) (emphasis in original). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s conclusion that Picado does not have a well-founded fear of
future persecution because there is no evidence in the record she will be persecuted
if she returns to El Salvador. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th
Cir. 2002) (where there is no presumption of a well-founded fear of future
persecution, country conditions reports are relevant evidence of whether such a
fear is objectively reasonable).
Because Picado failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it
follows that she has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --