Carhuaz Rodriguez v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JACINTO JUAN CARHUAZ No. 07-74048
RODRIGUEZ,
Agency No. A099-340-903
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jacinto Juan Carhuaz Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Peru, 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 asylum
*
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).
and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo questions of law and for substantial evidence factual findings.
Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and
deny in part the petition for review.
Carhuaz Rodriguez challenges the agency’s determination that he failed to
establish extraordinary circumstances excusing his untimely filed asylum
application on the basis of Dr. LoRé’s evidence and his own testimony. We lack
jurisdiction to review his contentions regarding the IJ’s analysis of Dr. LoRé’s
evidence because the agency’s finding was based on disputed facts regarding
Carhuaz Rodriguez’s mental condition, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); cf. Husyev, 528
F.3d at 1178-81 (exercising jurisdiction to consider one-year bar where facts were
undisputed), and because Carhuaz Rodriguez failed to raise his contentions
regarding confrontation and recall problems to the BIA, see Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over claims not presented
below). Further, Carhuaz Rodriguez’s testimony does not otherwise compel the
conclusion that he established extraordinary circumstances excusing his late filing.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part as to
Carhuaz Rodriguez’s asylum claim.
2 07-74048
With respect to withholding of removal, the BIA denied relief in part
because Carhuaz Rodriguez failed to establish a likelihood of harm in the future.
Substantial evidence supports this determination. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293
F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Carhuaz Rodriguez’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 07-74048