Anastacio Guevara-Guzman v. Eric H. Holder Jr. ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANASTACIO GUEVARA-GUZMAN, No. 08-71675
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-923-958
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Anastacio Guevara-Guzman, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except
to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing
statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004).
We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d
849, 854 (9th Cir. 2009). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Guevara-Guzman
established changed or extraordinary circumstances sufficient to excuse the delay
in filing his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Accordingly, we
deny the petition as to Guevara-Guzman’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Guevara-Guzman’s
withholding of removal claim because he failed to establish gang members have
harmed him or will harm him on account of a protected ground. See Barrios, 581
F.3d at 856 (evidence supported conclusion that gang victimized the petitioner for
economic and personal reasons rather than on account of a protected ground); see
also Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Asylum generally is not
available to victims of civil strife, unless they are singled out on account of a
protected ground.”). We lack jurisdiction to consider Guevara-Guzman’s
2 08-71675
contentions based on being a member of a class of “small merchants” or “small
businessmen” and his contentions based on imputed political opinion because he
did not raise them to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th
Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Guevara-Guzman’s
withholding of removal claim.
Finally, Guevara-Guzman fails to raise any substantive challenge to the
denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th
Cir. 1996) (issues not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed
waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 08-71675