Julio Leonel Mazariegos Diaz; Doni Danilo Mazariegos Diaz 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JULIO LEONEL MAZARIEGOS DIAZ;
DONI DANILO MAZARIEGOS DIAZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70181
Agency Nos. A070-541-361
A098-814-268
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Julio Leonel Mazariegos Diaz and Doni Danilo Mazariegos Diaz, natives
and citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
FILED
MAY 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-70181 2
decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“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), and we deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners failed to
demonstrate they suffered harm rising to the level of past persecution. See
Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005) (no past persecution
where the petitioner was not physically harmed or detained, and only suffered de
minimus property damage and anonymous, vague threats). Substantial evidence
also supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners failed to establish a well-founded
fear of future persecution where they only assert a general fear of crime in
Guatemala. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2004) (fear of
discrimination and random criminal acts did not establish a well-founded fear of
future persecution); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir.
2002) (agency properly relied on a State Department report to determine whether
the petitioner had a well-founded future fear). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum
claim fails.

-- 2 of 3 --

10-70181 3
Because petitioners failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it
follows that they have not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because petitioners failed to establish that it is more likely than not they will be
tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See Silaya
v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --