FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELENO EMPERATRIZ LOPEZ- No. 09-71187
CIFUENTES; ELCIAS ELENO LOPEZ-
MAZARIEGOS, Agency Nos. A072-141-396
A079-566-323
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Eleno Emperatriz Lopez-Cifuentes and Elcias Eleno Lopez-Mazariegos,
natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
*
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).
denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, 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 IJ’s finding that the three unfulfilled
threats by the guerillas, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (unfulfilled threats,
without more, generally do not constitute past persecution). Substantial evidence
also supports the IJ’s determination that petitioners failed to establish a well-
founded fear of future persecution in light of changed country conditions in
Guatemala. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002)
(when a petitioner has not established past persecution, the agency may “rely on all
relevant evidence in the record, including a State Department report, in considering
whether the petitioner has demonstrated that there is good reason to fear future
persecution.”). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because Lopez-Cifuentes failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, he
necessarily failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
2 09-71187
Finally, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because
Lopez-Cifuentes has not shown it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
returned to Guatemala. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.
2009).
We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that they qualify for
humanitarian asylum because they failed to exhaust this claim before the agency.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 09-71187