Flor Maria De Paz Caal 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).
KV/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FLOR MARIA DE PAZ CAAL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74796
Agency No. A070-915-554
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.
Flor Maria De Paz Caal, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
FILED
MAR 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KV/Research 07-74796 2
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Prasad v.
INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1995), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that De Paz Caal failed to
establish past persecution because her experiences in Guatemala did not rise to the
level of persecution. See id. at 339-40. Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s finding that De Paz Caal did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of
future persecution because her two voluntary return trips to Guatemala undermined
her claim, see Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2008), and
because she failed to show the harm to her brother was part of a pattern of
persecution closely tied to her, see Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414
(9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, her asylum claim fails.
Because De Paz Caal failed to establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily
follows that she did not meet the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
De Paz Caal failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not she will be tortured
in Guatemala. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --