Elsa F. Arias; Fredy Eduardo Cutzal-Arias 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ELSA F. ARIAS; FREDY EDUARDO
CUTZAL-ARIAS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72434
Agency Nos. A072-399-005
A096-494-827
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011**
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Elsa F. Arias and Fredy Eduardo Cutzal-Arias, natives and citizens of
Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention
FILED
FEB 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

06-72434 2
Against Torture (“CAT”), and Arias’ request for cancellation of removal. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,
Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners’
experiences in Guatemala did not constitute persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft,
319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003). Further, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s conclusion that petitioners failed to establish they have an objective
well-founded fear of persecution. See Nahrvani, 399 F.3d at 1154; see also Aruta
v. INS, 80 F.3d 1389, 1395-96 (9th Cir. 1996) (record evidence did not compel
finding that petitioner’s fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable).
Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners failed to demonstrate they were eligible for asylum, they
necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Nahrvani, 399 F.3d at 1154.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they would be tortured if
returned to Guatemala. See id.

-- 2 of 3 --

06-72434 3
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary
determination that Arias failed to establish the requisite hardship for cancellation
of removal. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --