FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MISAEL PERDOMO-MARTINEZ, a.k.a. No. 08-70964
Misael Perdomo,
Agency No. A095-657-372
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Misael Perdomo-Martinez, 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
withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review for substantial evidence factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Perdomo-
Martinez did not establish a clear probability of persecution because the threats he
and his family received, and the death of his cousin, do not amount to persecution
on account of a protected ground. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153
(9th Cir. 2005); Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1486 (9th Cir. 1997). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s determination Perdomo-Martinez failed to
establish a clear probability of persecution in light of his family’s ability to live
unharmed in Guatemala City. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.
2001). Perdomo-Martinez does not otherwise contend he has a future fear of
persecution. Accordingly, his claim for withholding of removal fails.
We lack jurisdiction to review Perdomo-Martinez’s contention that the IJ did
not consider evidence of country conditions because he did not exhaust it before
the BIA. See Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 412 (9th Cir. 2009) (no
jurisdiction to review due process claim where petitioner failed to exhaust the
claim).
2 08-70964
Perdomo-Martinez’s counsel is cautioned that her opening brief does not
meet this court’s standards. See generally Fed.R.App. P.28; 9th Cir. R.28-2.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 08-70964