FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRUZ LEMUS, No. 11-71111
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-936-657
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Cruz Lemus, 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 asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have 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 review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration
proceedings, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Lemus’s
experiences regarding his reenlistment in the military do not rise to the level of
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003)
(discrimination, harassment, and physical encounters without any significant
physical violence did not compel finding of past persecution). We reject Lemus’s
contentions that the agency inadequately or improperly considered his past
persecution claim. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that
Lemus failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution on account
of a protected ground. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future
persecution too speculative). Thus, Lemus’s asylum claim fails.
Because Lemus failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, it
necessarily follows that he failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for
withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
2 11-71111
Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Lemus
failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to
Guatemala. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011).
Finally, we reject Lemus’s contention that the IJ’s discussion of changed
circumstances deprived him of a fair hearing. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process
claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-71111