Remigio Hernandez Lopez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
REMIGIO HERNANDEZ LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70878
Agency No. A099-779-656
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Remigio Hernandez Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JAN 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 09-70878
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Hernandez Lopez testified he was threatened because he refused to testify as
an eyewitness to a crime. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion
that Hernandez Lopez failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future
persecution on account of his political opinion, political neutrality, ethnicity, or
membership in a particular social group. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
481-82 (1992). Accordingly, in the absence of a nexus to a protected ground,
Hernandez Lopez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Ochoa v.
Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Hernandez
Lopez failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See
Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747-48 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly,
Hernandez Lopez’s CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --