Opinion
No. 07-74859.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed April 15, 2010.
Santos Rodas De Leon, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Marcela Julieta Arriaga-Santizo, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, Zoe Jaye Heller, Esquire, Trial, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A098-429-775, A098-429-776.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Santos Rodas De Leon and his wife, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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), and we review de novo questions of law, Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274-75 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.
Rodas De Leon fears persecution from the National Advancement Party based on his uncle's political activities. Substantial evidence supports the agency's conclusion that Rodas De Leon did not establish that he was or would be persecuted on account of an actual or imputed political opinion. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1489-90 (9th Cir. 1997); Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1170-72 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, petitioners' asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Ochoa, 406 F.3d at 1172.
Finally, petitioners' due process claim that the BIA failed to consider all of their evidence fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (no due process violation where no prejudice).