FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 27 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ANTONIO ROBLES-URUTHIA, No. 11-73371
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-800-231
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.
Luis Antonio Robles-Uruthia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 the
agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Robles-Uruthia received three death threats and once had rocks thrown at
him on account of his political activity, but was never physically harmed.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even considered
cumulatively, Robles-Uruthia did not suffer harm rising to the level of persecution.
See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (9th Cir. 2000) (unfulfilled threats, without
more, generally do not constitute past persecution). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s determination that Robles-Uruthia’s fear of future
persecution was speculative, see Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.
2003), and that Robles-Uruthia failed to establish the government was unwilling to
control the perpetrators, see Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th
Cir. 2005) (failure to report non-governmental persecution due to belief that police
would do nothing did not establish that government was unwilling or unable to
control persecutors). Accordingly, Robles-Uruthia’s asylum claim fails.
Because Robles-Uruthia failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum,
his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
2 11-73371
Finally, Robles-Uruthia does not raise any arguments in his opening brief
regarding the agency’s denial of his CAT claim. Accordingly his CAT claim is
waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-73371