Marlon Rivai Salguero Donado 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARLON RIVAI SALGUERO
DONADO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72624
Agency No. A070-945-442
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Marlon Rivai Salguero Donado, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed
FILED
OCT 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-72624 2
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
Donado testified guerillas harmed him for refusing to transport arms and for
refusing to give them merchandise. The record does not compel reversal of the
BIA’s conclusion that Donado failed to establish guerillas targeted him on account
of a protected ground. See id. at 482-84. Substantial evidence also supports the
BIA’s conclusion that Donado failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution, particularly in light of the 1996 Peace Accords which ended the
conflict between guerillas and the Guatemalan government. See Molina-Estrada v.
INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Donado’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Donado failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying
relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --