FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS NAVARRETE, No. 13-74181
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-802-017
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Navarrete, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
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).
the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.
2009). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Navarrete met his burden of
proof to establish the government of Mexico would be unwilling or unable to
control the individuals he fears. See Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920-23
(9th Cir. 2010); see also Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.
2005) (failure to report non-governmental persecution due to belief that police
would do nothing did not establish that government was unable or unwilling to
control persecutors); see also Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.
2005) (record does not compel a contrary conclusion where “reasonable minds
could differ”). Thus, Navarrete’s claim for withholding of removal fails. In light
of this conclusion, we do not reach Navarrete’s contentions regarding a disfavored
group analysis.
This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking prosecutorial
discretion or deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security. See
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471,
483-85 (1999) (stating that prosecutorial discretion by the agency can be granted at
any stage, including after the conclusion of judicial review).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-74181