From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rivera v. Ashcroft

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 20, 2003
72 F. App'x 718 (9th Cir. 2003)

Opinion


72 Fed.Appx. 718 (9th Cir. 2003) David Obdulio Madrid RIVERA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 02-71881. Agency No. A76-358-817. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 20, 2003

Submitted August 11, 2003.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

David Obdulio Madrid-Rivera, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming the immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual determinations concerning the petitioners' eligibility for asylum, and must uphold them unless the evidence compels a contrary result. 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 for review.

The record does not compel a finding that the treatment Madrid-Rivera received rises to the level of persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir.1995). Therefore, Madrid-Rivera failed to provide evidence to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution. See id. at 340. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the IJ's conclusion that Madrid-Rivera did not establish eligibility for asylum, see id., or withholding of removal, see Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000).

Madrid-Rivera's contention that the IJ erred by not analyzing his case under Matter of Chen, 20 J & N (BIA 1989), lacks

Page 719.

merit because Madrid-Rivera failed to establish past persecution, which is required under Matter of Chen.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Rivera v. Ashcroft

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 20, 2003
72 F. App'x 718 (9th Cir. 2003)
Case details for

Rivera v. Ashcroft

Case Details

Full title:David Obdulio Madrid RIVERA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 20, 2003

Citations

72 F. App'x 718 (9th Cir. 2003)