Esteban Mayorga v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESTEBAN MAYORGA, a.k.a. Esteban No. 11-73919
Ramon Mayorga Fuentes,
Agency No. A094-292-146
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Esteban Mayorga, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d
1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Mayorga failed to
establish the harm he suffered in the past, including threats by a manager who had
political connections and the loss of his job in the context of a corporate
reorganization, rose to the level of persecution. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399
F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2005). Further, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s finding that Mayorga failed to establish that he faces a likelihood of
future persecution. See Zehatye, 435 F.3d at 1990 (to qualify for withholding of
removal, petitioner must show it is more likely than not he would be subjected to
persecution on account of a protected ground); Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182,
1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (“[a] personal dispute is not, standing alone,
tantamount to persecution based on an imputed political opinion”). We reject both
Mayorga’s contention that the BIA did not engage in sufficient analysis of the IJ’s
decision, and his contention that the BIA applied an improper standard of review.
Accordingly, Mayorga’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Mayorga’s contentions that the IJ
erred by not considering his social group claim, because he did not raise this
2 11-73919
argument in his appeal to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th
Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 11-73919