Jose Rolando Berganza Buezo; Maria Victoria Blanco Placios De Berganza 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE ROLANDO BERGANZA BUEZO;
MARIA VICTORIA BLANCO PLACIOS
DE BERGANZA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72022
Agency Nos. A072-536-298
A072-536-299
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.
Jose Rolando Berganza Buezo and Maria Victoria Blanco Placios de
Berganza, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration
FILED
JUL 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

10-72022 2
judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings.
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the
petition for review.
Petitioners claim past persecution and/or a fear of future persecution based
on threatening phone calls in 1990 and 1992, an incident in 1994 in which their car
was run off the road, and evidence from their tenant of problems after they left
Guatemala.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the phone calls
Blanco Placios de Berganza received did not rise to the level of persecution. See
Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (unfulfilled threats
constituted harassment rather than persecution). Further, the record does not
compel the conclusion that petitioners established the car incident was on account
of their actual or imputed political opinion, or any other protected ground. See INS
v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (petitioner must provide evidence of
persecutor’s motive). Accordingly, petitioners did not establish that they suffered
past persecution. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004).

-- 2 of 4 --

10-72022 3
In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that
petitioners did not show that the calls and visits their tenant received were on
account of a protected ground, see id., or that the attack on her family members
was related to them, see Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009)
(petitioner failed to show murder of friend and attempted murder of pastor were
“part of a pattern of persecution closely tied to” petitioner himself) (internal
quotation omitted). Nor have petitioners otherwise established a well-founded fear
of persecution on account of a protected ground. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d
1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003).
In light of the foregoing conclusions, we need not reach petitioners’
arguments regarding the weight given to the tenant’s evidence. Further, we reject
petitioners’ contentions that the BIA’s analysis was insufficient. See Lopez v.
Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004) (agency “does not have to write an
exegesis on every contention”). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum,
their claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at
1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not that they will be tortured if

-- 3 of 4 --

10-72022 4
returned to Guatemala. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.
2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --