Carmelo Diaz-Ortega 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CARMELO DIAZ-ORTEGA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73755
Agency No. A095-739-699
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Carmelo Diaz-Ortega, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his application for withholding of
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 09-73755
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of withholding of removal
because Diaz-Ortega failed to show his alleged persecutors threatened him on
account of a protected ground. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1171
(9th Cir. 2005) (holding that social group of business persons resisting criminal
activity is too broad to qualify as a particularized social group for purposes of
asylum and withholding of removal); Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir.
1998) (recognizing that generalized lawlessness and violence between diverse
populations is generally insufficient to support asylum claim).
Contrary to Diaz-Ortega’s contention that the Board’s decision did not
provide an adequate basis for review and violated his due process rights, the IJ was
not required to discuss every piece of evidence, but only to consider all of the
evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3). Moreover, the Board’s decision contains an
adequate statement of its reasons for denying relief so that this court may properly
conduct its review. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995).
Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief based on
the Board’s finding that Diaz-Ortega did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at

-- 2 of 3 --

3 09-73755
the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan
government. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --