FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ABRAHAM PEREZ-RODARTE, No. 12-71652
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-286-704
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Abraham Perez-Rodarte, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
*
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).
evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006), and for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand, de Jesus
Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Perez-Rodarte failed
to establish that he suffered harm rising to the level of past persecution when he
and his family were attacked by gang members. See Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153,
1158 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (describing persecution as an “extreme concept”).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Perez-Rodarte did not
demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution because he did not show that
he cannot relocate internally to avoid harm, see Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859,
867-68 (9th Cir. 2001), or that the government cannot or will not control his
attackers, see Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir. 2010). The
record does not support Perez-Rodarte’s contention that the situation in Mexico is
analogous to the situation we described in Haiti in Desir v. Ilchert, 840 F.2d 723
(9th Cir. 1988). Thus, Perez-Rodarte’s withholding of removal claim fails.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Perez-Rodarte’s motion to
remand for consideration of new evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (a motion to
reopen shall not be granted unless it appears to the BIA that the petitioner’s
2 12-71652
evidence “was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the
former hearing”). We decline to consider evidence that is not part of the
administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en
banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-71652