NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN SANTIAGO VELASQUEZ No. 13-70098
CARRILLO,
Agency No. A077-378-840
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Edwin Santiago Velasquez Carrillo, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
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, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that even if Velasquez
Carrillo established past persecution on account of a protected ground, a
fundamental change in circumstances in Guatemala rebutted his presumption of a
well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft,
336 F.3d 995, 998-1001 (9th Cir. 2003) (the BIA rationally construed the country
report and provided a sufficiently individualized analysis of how the changed
conditions affected petitioner’s specific situation). Because the BIA did not rely
on corroboration in making this dispositive determination, we do not reach
Valasquez Carrillo’s contentions that the agency erred and violated due process by
applying the REAL ID Act’s corroboration standards to his case. See
Mendez-Alcaraz v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 842, 844 (9th Cir. 2006) (the court need not
reach nondispositive challenges to the BIA’s order). We lack jurisdiction to
consider Velasquez Carrillo’s contentions regarding humanitarian asylum. See
He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 795 (9th Cir. 2014) (“We are without jurisdiction to
2 13-70098
hear arguments that a petitioner has not exhausted by raising and arguing in his
brief before the BIA”). Thus, Velasquez Carrillo’s asylum claim fails. See
Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 1001.
Because Velasquez Carrillo failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
necessarily does not qualify for withholding of removal. See id. at n.5.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Velasquez Carrillo failed to establish it is more likely than not he would
be tortured at the instigation of or with the acquiescence of the government if
returned to Guatemala. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-70098