Lino Ixpata-Bolvito v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 472 F. App'x 766 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LINO IXPATA-BOLVITO No. 08-71207
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-957-263
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Lino Ixpata-Bolvito, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se 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,
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
factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and
we review de novo due process claims, Tovar-Landin v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1164,
1166 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Ixpata-Bolvito failed to
demonstrate that the guerrillas’ threats rose to the level of persecution or that the
gang members threatened him on account of a protected ground. See Lim v. INS,
224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (a threat, standing alone, can be past persecution
only if it is “so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.”)
(internal quotations omitted); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.
2010). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Ixpata-Bolvito
failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS,
333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). We decline to consider Ixpata-Bolvito’s
contention that he will be persecuted as an indigenous person because, as the BIA
found, Ixpata-Bolvito failed to raise this claim before the IJ. See Farhoud v. INS,
122 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 1997) (declining to address issues that were not raised
before the proper administrative body). Accordingly, Ixpata-Bolvito’s asylum
claim fails.
2 08-71207
Because Ixpata-Bolvito failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum,
it follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Ixpata-Bolvito failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured
by or with the acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, we reject Ixpata-Bolvito’s contention that the BIA erred in not
remanding his voluntary departure claim, where he did not request it at his final
hearing and did not submit any evidence which would qualify him for voluntary
departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-71207