Salvador Aguilar 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 AGUILAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70959
Agency No. A072-542-246
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, GRABER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Aguilar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
FILED
MAY 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

of removal. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings.
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that Aguilar failed to
establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of an
actual or imputed political opinion or any other protected ground. See INS v.
Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481–82 (1992) (holding that forced recruitment
alone is not enough to show persecution on account of political opinion);
Santos–Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745–47 (9th Cir. 2008) (speculative fear
of future gang activity and persecution does not serve as a basis for asylum relief);
Cruz–Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1028–30 (9th Cir. 2000) (“While the
guerillas may have regarded Cruz as an informant, this is not akin to imputing a
political belief to him.”).
Because Aguilar failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of deportation. See
Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir. 1995)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --