Laura Yanet Torres Velasquez; Edgar Daniel Ortiz Monroy 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LAURA YANET TORRES
VELASQUEZ; EDGAR DANIEL ORTIZ
MONROY,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-75754
Agency Nos. A075-738-428
A075-738-427
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2011**
Pasadena, California
Before: GOODWIN, KLEINFELD, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Laura Yanet Torres Velasquez and her husband, Edgar Daniel Ortiz Monroy,
petition for review of an order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture. Even assuming Torres Velasquez’s and
FILED
FEB 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

Monroy’s testimony was credible, the immigration judge (IJ) permissibly found
that any mistreatment they suffered did not have a nexus to a protected ground. See
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
In addition, the IJ permissibly found that Torres Velasquez’s and Monroy’s
mistreatment did not rise to the level of persecution. See, e.g., Fisher v. INS, 79
F.3d 955, 960 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc). Finally, the IJ permissibly found that
Velasquez’s and Monroy’s fear of future persecution was not objectively
reasonable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2).
For the above reasons, we deny the petition.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --