08-71295•Cesar Augusto Ortiz v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
08-71295Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit31 de ago. de 2010
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CESAR AUGUSTO ORTIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71295
Agency No. A072-684-387
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 23, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Augusto Ortiz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
AUG 31 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
08-71295 2
substantial evidence, Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ortiz did not
establish past persecution based on threats by the guerillas and a single instance of
mistreatment by soldiers. See id. at 936 (only in “certain extreme cases [have we]
held that repeated and especially menacing death threats can constitute a primary
part of a past persecution claim”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
determination that Ortiz failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution in light of changed country conditions following the 1996 peace
accords. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2002).
Because Ortiz did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily follows
that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.