Eswin Osiel Maldonado 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ESWIN OSIEL MALDONADO; VILMA
NINETH LOPEZ, a.k.a. Vilma Ninette
Lopez; MARLENY CONCEPCION
MALDONADO, a.k.a. Marleny
Conception Maldonado,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74893
Agency Nos. A073-406-964
A072-404-141
A075-758-639
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Eswin Osiel Maldonado, and his family, natives and citizens of Guatemala,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their
FILED
JUN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-74893 2
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial
evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1 (1992), we deny the
petition for review.
Petitioners contend they suffered past persecution and have a well-founded
fear of future persecution on account of their imputed political opinion and
membership in the particular social group of their family. Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s denial of asylum because petitioners failed to establish that
either the murder of their grandfather by unknown assailants for unknown reasons,
or the two anonymous letters threatening the family for unknown reasons
demonstrated a nexus to a protected ground. See id. at 483-84. Because
petitioners failed to establish past persecution on account of a protected ground,
their humanitarian asylum claims also fail. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii).
Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because petitioners failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not they will be

-- 2 of 3 --

07-74893 3
tortured by or with the acquiescent of government officials if returned to
Guatemala. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --