Luis Ambrosio Chajon-Guzman 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LUIS AMBROSIO CHAJON-GUZMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73748
Agency No. A070-185-138
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Luis Ambrosio Chajon-Guzman, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
FILED
FEB 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-73748 2
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Chajon-Guzman failed
to demonstrate the deaths of his mother and sister were on account of a protected
ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (petitioner must
provide direct or circumstantial evidence of motive). Further, contrary to Chajon-
Guzman’s contention, the IJ did not require him to have seen the incident with his
mother and sister, and the BIA did not require him to prove the cause of their
deaths to an absolute certainty. Because Chajon-Guzman did not establish past
persecution, he is not eligible for humanitarian asylum. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1)(iii). We reject Chajon-Guzman’s contention that the agency
should have taken his age into account because the agency denied his claim based
on a lack of nexus. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that
Chajon-Guzman failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution upon return
to Guatemala. See Castillo v. INS, 951 F.2d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 1991)
(petitioner’s well-founded fear may be undermined by “safe and undisturbed
residence in his homeland after the occurrence of the event which is alleged to
have induced his fear”); Rostomian v. INS, 210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir. 2000)

-- 2 of 3 --

10-73748 3
(rejecting asylum claim based on general civil strife). Consequently, his asylum
claim fails.
Because Chajon-Guzman did not establish his eligibility for asylum, it
follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. See Rostomian, 210 F.3d at 1089.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection
because Chajon-Guzman failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in
Guatemala. See Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary
to Chajon-Guzman’s contention, the agency applied the correct legal standard in
assessing his CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --