Gallardo-Lopez v. Holder , 573 F. App'x 643 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUMERCINDO ANTONIO No. 08-70339
GALLARDO-LOPEZ,
Agency No. A098-651-669
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Gumercindo Antonio Gallardo-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
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 relief 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 for
substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo due process claims. Liu v. Holder, 640
F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Gallardo-Lopez
failed to show the government of Guatemala was or would be unwilling or unable
to control the individuals who threatened him. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409
F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, Gallardo-Lopez’s asylum claim fails.
Because Gallardo-Lopez 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 agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Gallardo-Lopez 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 lack jurisdiction to review Gallardo-Lopez’s unexhausted
contention that the agency violated his due process rights by not terminating
proceedings. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.