FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFAEL ROMERO, No. 11-73999
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-944-135
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 13, 2014**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Romero, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se 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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Romero did not
suffer harm rising to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936
(9th Cir. 2000); see also Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2004) (en
banc) (persecution is an “extreme concept”) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Romero did
not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected
ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). We lack
jurisdiction to review Romero’s unexhausted claim for humanitarian asylum. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, Romero’s asylum
claim fails. We deny Romero’s request for judicial notice of generalized
conditions in Guatemala. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en
banc). We also do not reach Romero’s contentions regarding the IJ’s adverse
credibility findings. See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 658 n.16 (9th Cir. 2000)
(review is limited to the grounds on which the BIA relied).
2 11-73999
Because Romero failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it
follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Romero failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured
by or with the acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 11-73999