EDILSON RODRIGUEZ-LUZ Jr. 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).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDILSON RODRIGUEZ-LUZ Jr.,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73208
Agency No. A098-112-606
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Edilson Rodriguez-Luz Jr., a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
FILED
FEB 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JT/Research 07-73208 2
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Lim v.
INS, 224 F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Rodriguez-Luz
failed to establish he was persecuted on account of a protected ground, see
Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal
retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground), and the agency’s
finding Rodriguez-Luz failed to show he was or would be persecuted by the
Brazilian government or by persons the government was unwilling or unable to
control, see Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1071-72 (9th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, Rodriguez-Luz’s asylum claim fails. See id. at 1072.
Because Rodriguez-Luz failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See id.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Rodriguez-Luz did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or
with the consent or acquiescence of the Brazilian government. See Azanor v.
Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --