Carlos Garay-Guzman v. Jefferson Sessions , 695 F. App'x 241 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ALBERTO GARAY-GUZMAN, No. 15-70362
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-534-879
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Alberto Garay-Guzman, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
pro se 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 new factual claims referenced in Garay-Guzman’s
opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this
court’s review is limited to the administrative record).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if
credible, the past harm Garay-Guzman suffered did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (unfulfilled threats generally do
not constitute past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
determination that Garay-Guzman failed to establish a clear probability of future
persecution. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence
did not compel a finding of a clear probability of future persecution to qualify for
withholding of removal). Thus, Garay-Guzman’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 15-70362