Luis Hernandez-Mejia 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LUIS HERNANDEZ-MEJIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74851
Agency No. A070-084-661
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Luis Hernandez-Mejia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum and cancellation
of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
MAR 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 08-74851
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we review de novo due process claims,
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Hernandez-Mejia’s
asylum claim because he failed to demonstrate he was or will be harmed on
account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83
(1992) (even if the petitioner holds a political opinion, he still must establish
targeting because of that political opinion). Accordingly, Hernandez-Mejia’s
asylum claim fails. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
Hernandez-Mejia contends the agency applied the incorrect legal standard to
his cancellation of removal claim, and in particular, failed to consider his ability to
work and support his children in El Salvador. The record belies this contention.
Because the agency applied the correct legal standard, we lack jurisdiction to
review the agency’s discretionary hardship determination. See Mendez-Castro v.
Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --