FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM EBERTO RUIZ-JUAREZ, No. 11-74008
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-978-342
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
William Eberto Ruiz-Juarez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 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 (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 356 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ruiz-Juarez
failed to show extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his
asylum application. See 8 C.F.R § 1208.4(a)(5). Accordingly, his asylum claim
fails.
The record does not compel the conclusion that the harms Ruiz-Juarez and
his family suffered in Guatemala amounted to past persecution. See Gu v.
Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-20 (9th Cir. 2006) (brief detention and beating did
not compel finding of persecution); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1198 (9th
Cir. 2003) (“The one incident of physical violence against Hoxha was not
connected with any particular threat and there is no evidence indicating that the
incident was officially sponsored.”). Thus, Ruiz-Juarez is not entitled to a
presumption of future persecution. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089,
1096 (9th Cir. 2002). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding
that Ruiz-Juarez failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be
persecuted if he returns to Guatemala. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018
2 11-74008
(9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative). Accordingly,
Ruiz-Juarez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Ruiz-Juarez failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be
tortured if he returns to Guatemala. See Silaya, 356 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-74008