FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFAEL CACATZUM-SANCHEZ, No. 12-70669
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-514-224
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2013 **
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Cacatzum-Sanchez, 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 decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
*
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).
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d
916, 920 (9th Cir. 2010), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Cacatzum-Sanchez’s contention that changed
circumstances excused the untimely filing of his asylum application because he
failed to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004).
We also lack jurisdiction to review Cacatzum-Sanchez’s procedural due
process claims related to translation problems, exclusion of testimony and alleged
IJ bias, and his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See id.
Cacatzum-Sanchez testified he did not report his neighbors’ attack to the
police. Cacatzum-Sanchez’s cousin, a local government official, testified at the
hearing that he would have been able to help Cacatzum-Sanchez had he known
about the incident. The record does not compel the conclusion that the Guatemalan
government is unable or unwilling to protect Cacatzum-Sanchez from harm by his
neighbors. See Rahimzadeh, 613 F.3d at 920-21. Accordingly, his withholding of
removal claim fails.
2 12-70669
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Cacatzum-Sanchez did not establish that he will be tortured by the Guatemalan
government or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Cacatzum-Sanchez’s contention that
his case warrants a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto
v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 12-70669