Jaroslav Fecko, a.k.a. Jaroslau Fecko v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAROSLAV FECKO, a.k.a. Jaroslau
Fecko,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74594
Agency No. A095-624-927
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jaroslav Fecko, a native and citizen of Slovakia, 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
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
JUL 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s 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 BIA’s finding that the harm Fecko
experienced, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution.
See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Prasad v.
INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although a reasonable factfinder could
have found [these incidents constituted] past persecution, we do not believe that a
factfinder would be compelled to do so.”) (emphasis in original). In addition, with
regard to the 1984 events, substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that
Fecko failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. See Gu, 454 F.3d
at 1022. Further, with regard to the 1994 extortion, substantial evidence supports
the BIA’s determination that Fecko failed to establish past persecution or a well-
founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992). Fecko’s contention that the agency
ignored country conditions evidence fails because he has not overcome the
presumption that the agency reviewed the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439
F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, Fecko’s withholding of removal claim fails.
08-74594 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Fecko’s CAT claim
because he failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured in
Slovakia by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government. See Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
08-74594 3

-- 3 of 3 --