Angel Chavez-Joaquin v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge, in and***
for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANGEL CHAVEZ-JOAQUIN and ERIKA
DINA PORTILLO-TORRES a/k/a/
ERIKA DINA PORTILLO a/k/a ERIKA
PORTILLO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71414
Agency Nos. A099-577-166 and
A099-577-168
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 8, 2010**
Seattle, Washington
Before: M. SMITH and THOMAS, Circuit Judges; COLLINS, District Judge***
FILED
OCT 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Substantial evidence supports the determination by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that petitioners did not establish eligibility for
asylum. Chavez-Joaquin has not established that any persecution he suffered in El
Salvador was on account of a protected ground. See Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232
F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Persecution occurring because a person is a
current member of a police force . . . is ‘not on account of one of the grounds
enumerated in the Act.’” (emphasis added) (citing Aguilar-Escobar v. INS, 136
F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 1998))).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that petitioners
have not demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution. Without more,
the threats Chavez-Joaquin allegedly received from gang members do not rise to
the requisite level for asylum eligibility. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444
F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). Having failed to establish asylum eligibility,
petitioners do not satisfy the higher standard required for withholding of removal
under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 658 (9th Cir.
2007) (per curiam).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of relief under the
Convention Against Torture, given that only a single, unsubstantiated assertion
presented to the BIA refers to the likelihood of torture. See Villegas v. Mukasey,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
523 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2008) ("An applicant for CAT relief has the burden 'to
establish that it is more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed.'"
(quoting Al-Saher v. INS, 268 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2001)) (alteration in
original)).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --