Salvador Guillen-Rico, a.k.a. Salvador Rico-Cardona 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SALVADOR GUILLEN-RICO, a.k.a.
Salvador Rico-Cardona,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72611
Agency No. A043-367-695
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Guillen-Rico, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal (“IJ”) order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims and questions of law, and review
FILED
OCT 31 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72611 2
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d
773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ correctly applied the modified categorical approach to determine that
Guillen-Rico’s conviction under Nevada Revised Statutes § 453.401 for conspiracy
to sell methamphetamine is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(U)
that rendered Guillen-Rico removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). See
Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2008). The IJ therefore did not
err in concluding that Guillen-Rico was ineligible for asylum, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(2)(B)(i), cancellation of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3), and
voluntary departure, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(1)(C).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Guillen-Rico’s
applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention
Against Torture because he failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that
he will be persecuted on account of a protected ground, or tortured, if he returns to
Mexico. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“Petitioners’ generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is not
particular to Petitioners and is insufficient to meet this standard.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --