Marwin Ernesto Navarro 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARWIN ERNESTO NAVARRO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72426
Agency No. A094-160-181
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Marwin Ernesto Navarro, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and
FILED
DEC 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-72426 2
relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act
(“NACARA”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85
(9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Navarro’s
experiences, including one beating by national guard soldiers and one detention
with no physical harm, do not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (harassment, threats, and one
beating did not compel finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also
supports the conclusion that even if Navarro suffered past persecution, the
government rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution
based on the 1992 peace accords in El Salvador. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v.
Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2003) (government successfully rebutted
presumption of well-founded fear based on 1996 peace accords ending the
Guatemalan civil war). Further, contrary to Navarro’s contention, the record does
not compel the conclusion that Navarro established an independent well-founded
fear of future persecution based on his fear of gang violence and crime in El
Salvador. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[a]n alien’s
desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random

-- 2 of 3 --

11-72426 3
violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”); see also
Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991) (“The abduction of
two geographically distant brothers by unknown gunmen for unknown reasons
does not establish a well-founded fear.”). Accordingly, Navarro’s asylum claim
fails.
Because Navarro failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it
follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Navarro failed to
establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if he returns to El Salvador.
See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly,
Navarro’s CAT claim fails.
Finally, as noted by the agency, Navarro conceded that his 2009 conviction
for possession of methamphetamine rendered him ineligible for relief under
NACARA. Navarro does not make any argument that he is eligible for NACARA
relief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --