FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUMBERTO BALMORIS DELGADO- No. 12-72949
HERNANDEZ,
Agency No. A200-116-735
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Humberto Balmoris Delgado-Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision (“IJ”) denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Cordoba v. Holder,
726 F.3d 1106, 1113 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for review.
Even if Delgado-Hernandez’s notice of appeal to the BIA was specific
enough to meaningfully challenge the IJ’s denial of his claims, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s finding that Delgado-Hernandez’s experiences in El
Salvador, including three unfulfilled threats from gang members, did not rise to the
level of past persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179,1182 (9th Cir.
2003) (unfulfilled threats received by ethnic Albanian “constitute harassment
rather than persecution”). In light of our conclusion, we need not address Delgado-
Hernandez’s contentions regarding nexus. Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s determination that Delgado-Hernandez did not establish a well-founded
fear of future persecution. See Gonzales-Medina v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th
Cir. 2011) (in the absence of past persecution, the burden is on petitioner to show
that relocation would be unreasonable). Thus, Delgado-Hernandez’s asylum claim
fails.
Because Delgado-Hernandez has not established eligibility for asylum, he
necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
2 12-72949
Finally, Delgado-Hernandez does not raise any arguments regarding the
denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th
Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are
waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-72949