FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISIDRO JUAN FRANCISCO, No. 11-72651
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-636-716
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 14, 2013 **
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Isidro Juan Francisco, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief
*
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).
Act (“NACARA”). 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), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Juan Francisco failed to
establish past persecution on account of an actual or imputed political opinion. See
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83 (1992) (forced recruitment alone does
not suffice to show persecution on account of political opinion). Because Juan
Francisco failed to present his “social group” argument to the BIA, we do not
consider it. See Cordon-Garcia v. INS, 204 F.3d 985, 988 (9th Cir. 2000). Having
failed to establish past persecution, Juan Francisco is not entitled to a presumption
of future persecution. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir.
2002). Juan Francisco does not argue that he otherwise established a well-founded
fear of future persecution. Accordingly, his asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Juan
Francisco is not eligible for NACARA relief. See Ixcot v. Holder, 646 F.3d 1202,
1213-14 (9th Cir. 2011). Juan Francisco argues that the BIA found that he credibly
testified regarding completion of an ABC registration form, and that it erred as a
2 11-72651
matter of law by requiring him to prove that the form was properly filed. We reject
this argument because, contrary to his assertion, the BIA did not find that the
document Juan Francisco signed was an ABC registration form.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 11-72651