Bernabe Gonzalez Mejia; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BERNABE GONZALEZ MEJIA; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 04-76256
Agency Nos. A075-479-311
A075-479-312
A075-479-313
A075-479-314
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.
Bernabe Gonzalez Mejia and his family, natives and citizens of Guatemala,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their
appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for
asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
JAN 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

04-76256 2
We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85
(9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that petitioners failed to
demonstrate the incidents that happened in Guatemala were on account of a
protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (to
reverse the agency’s decision “we must find that the evidence not only supports
that conclusion, but compels it”) (emphasis in original). Thus, contrary to
petitioners’ assertion, they are not entitled to a presumption of future fear because
they failed to establish past persecution on account of a protected ground. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th
Cir. 2003). Further, the record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners
demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. at 481 n.1; Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018. Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum
claim fails.
Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --