NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESTEBAN SANCHEZ-DOMINGO, AKA No. 10-70239
Domingo Esteban Sanchez,
Agency No. A026-760-211
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Esteban Sanchez-Domingo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 and
*
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).
withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Sanchez failed to show
that he suffered harm rising to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d
929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone [] constitute past persecution in
only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to
cause significant actual suffering or harm.”) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Sanchez failed
to demonstrate his fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding future fear not
objectively reasonable under circumstances of the case). Contrary to Sanchez-
Domingo’s contention, the record reflects that the BIA considered the 2006
country report. Thus, Sanchez’s asylum claim fails.
Because Sanchez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of
removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190
(9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Sanchez’s suspension of deportation
claim because he did not raise it to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
2 10-70239
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over legal claims not presented in
administrative proceedings below).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 10-70239