Deiby Villalobos-Bonilla v. Loretta E. Lynch , 637 F. App'x 490 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEIBY VILLALOBOS-BONILLA; No. 11-70977
FRANKLIN JAVIER BONILLA,
Agency Nos. A098-650-639
Petitioners, A098-650-638
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Deiby Villalobos-Bonilla and Franklin Javier Bonilla, natives and citizens of
Honduras, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed
*
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).
by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We reject petitioners’ request to submit additional evidence. See Fisher v.
INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the court’s review is limited to the
administrative record).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners did
not establish past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th
Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an extreme concept”) (internal quotation and citation
omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that
petitioners failed to establish the harm they fear would be on account of a protected
ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus,
petitioners’ asylum claims fail.
Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, their
withholding of removal claims necessarily fail. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contentions as to
counsel’s allegedly deficient performance because they did not raise this issue to
the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004)
2 11-70977
(petitioners must exhaust claims in administrative proceedings below).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 11-70977