Leonardo Fabio Velandia Quinones; Claudia Ximena Beltran Vera 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LEONARDO FABIO VELANDIA
QUINONES; CLAUDIA XIMENA
BELTRAN VERA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72206
Agency Nos. A095-193-464
A095-193-465
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.
Leonardo Fabio Velandia Quinones and Claudia Ximena Beltran Vera,
natives and citizens of Columbia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration judge’s order denying their
FILED
SEP 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

To the extent Quinones contends he is a member of a social group distinct1
from the one the BIA considered and rejected, we lack jurisdiction to consider it.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
07-72206 2
application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512
F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the
BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review factual findings for
substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
We reject respondent’s renewed request to strike petitioners’ brief.
Quinones had several encounters with guerrillas in which they attempted to
recruit him to provide information about building projects, contracts, and other
government operations. Quinones contends the harm he suffered from the
guerrillas was on account of his political opinion and his membership in a
particular social group.1
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Quinones failed to
establish the guerrillas’ actions against him were politically motivated. See id. at
482; Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1997) (persecution by anti-
government guerrillas may not, “from that fact alone, be presumed to be ‘on

-- 2 of 3 --

07-72206 3
account of’ political opinion”). We reject Quinones’s claim that he is eligible for
asylum based on his membership in a particular social group. See Ochoa v.
Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 2005) (concluding “business owners in
Colombia who rejected demands by narco-traffickers to participate in illegal
activity” was “too broad to qualify as a particularized social group”). Because
Quinones failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground, petitioners’ asylum
claim fails. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 482-83.
Because petitioners did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily
follows they failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --