FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 26 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SERGIO VINICIO GARZO-ALVAREZ, No. 12-70470
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-821-224
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Sergio Vinicio Garzo-Alvarez, 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 decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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). Petitioner’s request for oral
argument is denied.
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, and de novo claims of due process
violations. Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1268-69 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that the threats Garzo-Alvarez
received from gang members who sought his help with legal services rose to the
level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000); Navhrani
v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (where reasonable minds could
differ as to whether threats constituted persecution, the record does not compel a
finding of persecution). With respect to future persecution, Garzo-Alvarez failed
to meet his burden of establishing that he could not reasonably relocate within
Guatemala. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i); Kaiser v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 653, 659
(9th Cir. 2004) (“Where, as here, the applicant has not established past persecution,
the applicant bears the burden of establishing that it would be either unsafe or
unreasonable for him to relocate, unless the persecution is by a government or is
government-sponsored.”). Finally, we reject Garzo-Alvarez’s contention that the
agency failed to adequately consider the country conditions evidence. See Larita-
Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner alleging the
agency violated due process by failing to consider relevant evidence must
2 12-70470
overcome the presumption that the agency did consider the evidence). Thus, his
asylum claim fails.
Because Garzo-Alvarez 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).
Finally, Garzo-Alvarez did 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 12-70470