FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDGAR ROVIDIO ORTEGA- No. 07-74313
SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Edgar Rovidio Ortega,
Agency No. A078-462-913
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Edgar Rovidio Ortega-Sanchez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
*
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).
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and de novo due process claims, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d
510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary
circumstances excused Ortega-Sanchez’s untimely filed asylum application. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir.
2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, Ortega-Sanchez’s asylum claim fails. In light of
this conclusion, we deny Ortega-Sanchez’s motion to file a supplemental brief.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Ortega-Sanchez
failed to establish past persecution because the record does not compel the
conclusion that the deaths of his friend and family members were connected to
him, see Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d at 1060 (requiring that persecution against
friends or family members be “part of a pattern of persecution closely tied to the
petitioner”) (internal quotations and citation omitted), and any threats he received
did not rise to the level of persecution, see Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (9th
Cir. 2000). Further, Ortega Sanchez failed to demonstrate sufficient individualized
risk of future persecution to show a clear probability of future persecution. See
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“An applicant for withholding of removal will need to
2 07-74313
adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk to prevail.”).
Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Ortega
Sanchez’s withholding of removal claim. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179,
1185 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Ortega-Sanchez’s CAT
claim because he did not establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured
if returned to Guatemala. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
Ortega-Sanchez contends his due process rights were violated because the IJ
employed an incorrect standard in denying his withholding of removal claim. We
reject this contention because it is belied by the record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail
on a due process claim).
Finally, we deny Ortega-Sanchez’s motion to take administrative notice of
the 2008 State Department Report. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.
1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-74313