Gonzalo Bartolo-Hernandez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GONZALO BARTOLO-HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72720
Agency No. A077-539-594
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 5, 2013 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, PAEZ and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
1. The BIA properly concluded that Bartolo-Hernandez’s prior conviction
was an aggravated felony that rendered him ineligible for asylum and cancellation
of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii) & (B)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C).
Second degree assault with a deadly weapon under Wash. Rev. Code
FILED
NOV 12 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

page 2
§ 9A.36.021(1)(c) is categorically a crime of violence. See United States v.
Jennen, 596 F.3d 594, 600–02 (9th Cir. 2010); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43); 18
U.S.C. § 16. The BIA also correctly concluded that Bartolo-Hernandez was
ineligible for cancellation of removal because the conviction conclusively shows
that he’s not a person of good moral character. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(B); 8
U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7)–(8).
2. The BIA properly found that Bartolo-Hernandez hadn’t met his burden of
proof with respect to withholding of removal. Substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s determination that the threats he’s received stem from a personal dispute and
aren’t on account of his membership in a particular social group. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B); see also Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d
499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013).
3. Bartolo-Hernandez presents no arguments or evidence to challenge the
IJ’s decision that he’s ineligible for protection under the Convention Against
Torture. Thus, he’s waived this claim. See Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1085
n.3 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --