Marvin Zeledon-Mendoza 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARVIN ZELEDON-MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72738
Agency No. A099-473-570
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Marvin Zeledon-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Honduras, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-72738 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
Zeledon-Mendoza testified that gang members, who believed he and a friend
had reported them to police, indirectly threatened them and subsequently killed his
friend, and he also testified that other gang members accosted and robbed him
outside his church. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that,
even if credible, Zeledon-Mendoza did not demonstrate past persecution or a fear
of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v.
Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a
protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s
persecution”); Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1164 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The BIA
permissibly found that Petitioner’s fear of future persecution stems from the
criminals’ motive to retaliate against him for informing on them.”); Gormley v.
Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004) (robberies did not establish
persecution where petitioner did not show he was robbed on account of protected
ground). Accordingly, Zeledon-Mendoza’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail.

-- 2 of 3 --

09-72738 3
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Zeledon-Mendoza failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be
tortured at the instigation of or with the acquiescence of the Honduran government.
See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --