U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2010

Velandia Quinones v. Holder

Velandia Quinones v. Holder
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided September 24, 2010 · Silverman, Callahan, Smith
396 F. App'x 450

Counsel

Steven Arthur Seick, Steven A. Seick, Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner., Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, David Michael McConnell, Deputy Director, OIL, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Briena Strippoli, Esquire, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Velandia Quinones v. Holder

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Santos Domingo Vicente-Fuentes, 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 withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence factual findings. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Vicente-Fuentes failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal because he failed to establish past persecution or a clear probability of persecution in Guatemala on account of a protected ground. See id. at 482-84, 112 S.Ct. 812; see also Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 944-46 (9th Cir. 2007) (rejecting petitioner’s withholding of removal claim based on membership in a particular social group). Accordingly, Vicente-Fuentes’s withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.