OSCAR EDWIN MONTERROSO-SOTO, AKA Oscar Edwin Monterroso v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR EDWIN MONTERROSO-SOTO,
AKA Oscar Edwin Monterroso,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70785
Agency No. A038-089-887
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 2, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Monterroso-Soto petitions for review of an order of removal affirmed
by the Board of Immigration Appeals. We deny the petition.
FILED
DEC 13 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 3 --

The record did not compel the conclusion that Monterroso faced a clear
probability of persecution, which is required to qualify for withholding of removal.
First, the Immigration Judge could properly find, as the BIA agreed, that the
testimony by Monterroso and his mother regarding the harm he would face if
returned to Guatemala was anecdotal and based on conjecture. Monterroso’s
testimony was based on his experiences in the United States, rather than his
knowledge about Guatemala. His mother’s testimony was based on what she
observed in Guatemala more than thirty years ago and during a more recent short
visit to the country.
Second, the letter from the Guatemalan Consulate and the State Department
2007 Country Report did not compel a finding that Monterroso would experience
harm rising to the level of persecution. Persecution generally “does not include
mere discrimination, as offensive as it may be.” Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 962
(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). In addition, “[a]s the BIA and the courts have
recognized, an inadequate healthcare system is not persecution . . . .” Mendoza-
Alvarez v. Holder, 714 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (footnote
omitted). The letter from the Guatemalan Consulate stated that Monterroso would
face economic hardship and lack access to medical treatment. The Country Report
noted that people with physical and mental disabilities lacked access to
2

-- 2 of 3 --

employment, education, and healthcare and that the government did not provide
them with adequate resources. Those hardships, though unfortunate, would not
amount to persecution. The evidence did not compel a conclusion that Monterroso
faced a clear probability of persecution.
We need not reach the other arguments made by Monterroso regarding his
membership in a proposed social group, including his due process argument,
because even if the group satisfied the legal standards, the evidence did not compel
the conclusion that he would face a clear probability of persecution as a result of
his membership in that group.
Monterroso did not present us with arguments to challenge the
determinations that he was ineligible for asylum and that he did not qualify for
relief under the Convention Against Torture.
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --