NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 26 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUSTAVO ADOLFO NAVARRO No. 14-73641
GUZMAN,
Agency No. A095-726-005
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Gustavo Adolfo Navarro Guzman, an alleged native and citizen of
Honduras, 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
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying his motion to remand. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th
Cir. 2006), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand,
Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in
part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Navarro Guzman’s contentions that he did
not raise to the BIA, see Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004)
(petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below), and
we do not consider the materials Navarro Guzman references that are not part of
the administrative record, see Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en
banc) (the court’s review is limited to the administrative record). Navarro
Guzman’s challenge to his continued detention is not properly before this court.
See Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Navarro
Guzman failed to establish an exception excusing his untimely asylum application.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5); see Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1091-92
(9th Cir. 2010). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to his asylum claim.
2 14-73641
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Navarro Guzman
failed to establish the government of Honduras was or would be unable or
unwilling to protect him from his assailants or the individuals he fears. See
Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920-22 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The absence of a
report to police . . . leaves a gap in proof about how the government would respond
if asked, which the petitioner may attempt to fill by other methods.”). Thus,
Navarro Guzman’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Navarro Guzman failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by
the Honduran government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Zheng v.
Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1194-96 (9th Cir. 2003). We reject Navarro Guzman’s
contentions that the BIA erred in analyzing his claim.
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Navarro Guzman’s
motion to remand. See Romero-Ruiz, 538 F.3d at 1062 (“The BIA abuses its
discretion if its decision is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”) (internal
quotation and citation omitted).
Navarro Guzman’s motions to file a late reply brief are granted.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 14-73641