Mejia Poblete v. Holder , 437 F. App'x 596 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR MANUEL MEJIA POBLETE, No. 08-70676
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-533-324
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.
Victor Manuel Mejia Poblete, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for
review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Mejia Poblete established
changed circumstances excusing the untimely filing of his asylum application. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 655-58 (9th Cir. 2007)
(per curiam). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Mejia Poblete failed
to establish that he experienced past persecution based on a single threatening letter
and two visits to his home from unknown men. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-
37 (9th Cir. 2000) (threats unaccompanied by additional mistreatment do not
amount to persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding
that Mejia Poblete did not demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution.
See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018. We reject Mejia Poblete’s contention the IJ failed
to consider his supporting documentation. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d
1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must overcome the presumption that the
agency has considered all the evidence). Accordingly, Mejia Poblete’s withholding
of removal claim fails.
2 08-70676
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Mejia Poblete failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
returned to Mexico. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir.
2007).
Finally, we reject Mejia Poblete’s contentions that the agency violated his
right to due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error to prevail in due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-70676