FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE ALBERTO AVILES-GOMEZ, No. 10-73157
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-960-090
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Alberto Aviles-Gomez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, 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).
(“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that, even if he was
credible, Aviles-Gomez failed to establish the threats he experienced in Honduras
rise to the level of persecution. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54
(9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel finding threats constituted persecution).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Aviles-Gomez
failed to establish an objectively reasonable well-founded fear of future
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility
of future persecution too speculative). Thus, Aviles-Gomez’s asylum claim fails.
Because Aviles-Gomez did not establish eligibility for asylum, his
withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Aviles-Gomez does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he waived
appeal of the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed
waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to his CAT claim.
2 10-73157
Finally, Aviles-Gomez raises no arguments challenging the BIA’s
determination that he is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-73157