Gerber Gonzalez-Ramirez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GERBER GONZALEZ-RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70441
Agency No. A095-650-930
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Gerber Gonzalez-Ramirez, native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
JAN 18 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-70441 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence factual findings. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Gonzalez-Ramirez
failed to demonstrate past persecution on account of a protected ground because he
could only speculate as to why his father was killed and the record does not compel
the conclusion that he was threatened on account of a political opinion or his
membership in a particular social group. See id. at 483-84. Substantial evidence
also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Gonzalez-Ramirez failed to establish he
has a well-founded fear of future persecution because he can reasonably relocate to
Guatemala City. See Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, Gonzalez-Ramirez’s asylum claim fails.
Because Gonzalez-Ramirez failed to meet the lower burden of proof for
asylum, it follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
The IJ did not expressly address Gonzalez-Ramirez’s CAT claim. However,
any error was harmless because the agency’s finding that Gonzalez-Ramirez can
relocate safely is supported by substantial evidence. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251
F.3d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 2001) (evidence the petitioner can relocate to avoid

-- 2 of 3 --

08-70441 3
torture is relevant to whether the petitioner has satisfied his burden for CAT relief);
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --