Mynor Melgar-Lopez v. Loretta E. Lynch , 643 F. App'x 619 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MYNOR ROLANDO MELGAR-LOPEZ, No. 11-72005
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-928-455
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Mynor Rolando Melgar-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction 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.
We do not consider the materials Melgar-Lopez references and submits for
the first time with his reply brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir.
1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record).
Melgar-Lopez testified he experienced trouble in Guatemala after he refused
to hand out political pamphlets during the civil war, and that he was unaware of
anyone in particular who might harm him if he returned to Guatemala. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s determination that Melgar-Lopez failed to establish
past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of an enumerated
ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (“[S]ince the statute
makes motive critical, [an applicant] must provide some evidence of it, direct or
circumstantial.”). We reject Melgar-Lopez’s contention that the IJ erred in its
analysis. Thus, Melgar-Lopez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Melgar-Lopez failed to show that it is more likely than not that he would
2 11-72005
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government
if returned. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-72005