Edel Naun-Zuniga 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
EDEL NAUN-ZUNIGA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71882
Agency No. A088-353-173
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Edel Naun-Zuniga, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JUL 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71882 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Naun-Zuniga
failed to establish past persecution or an objectively reasonable fear of future
persecution on account of a protected ground, because he did not demonstrate that
his attacker was or would be motivated by more than a desire to prevent Naun-
Zuniga from avenging his brother’s death. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d
734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he REAL ID Act requires that a protected ground
represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); Molina-
Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal retribution is not
persecution on account of a protected ground). Accordingly, Naun-Zuniga’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Naun-Zuniga failed to demonstrate that he will more likely than not be
tortured if he returns to Honduras or that the feared torture would be conducted
with the acquiescence of a public official. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066,
1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --