Opinion
No. 07-73953.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed April 14, 2010.
Stephen John Coghlan, Esquire, Law Office of Stephen Coghlan, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Stuart S. Nickum, Esquire, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Anthony Paul Nicastro, Esquire, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, 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. A073-122-443 A073-122-446.
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.
Dante Jorge Rios and his wife, Lilia Rosa Zuniga, natives and citizens of Peru, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from, an immigration judge's decision denying their application for with-holding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that Rios and Zuniga failed to demonstrate that they were harmed on account of an imputed political opinion. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.Sd 734, 740-42 (9th Cir. 2009) (the protected ground has to be `:one central reason" for persecution). Accordingly, Rios and Zuniga's claim for withholding of removal fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.