NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN JUAN-OSCORIO, AKA Robert No. 15-71887
Garcia, AKA Roberto Garcia, AKA Jesus
Juan-Juan, AKA Juan Juan-Osorio, AKA Agency No. A027-202-046
Juan Osorio,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM*
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Juan Juan-Oscorio, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”), and deeming abandoned his application for NACARA benefits. 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 for abuse of discretion the decision to deem an application
abandoned, Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Juan-Oscorio’s asylum
claim because he failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Gu v.
Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present
“compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of
persecution”). In this case, because Juan-Oscorio failed to establish eligibility for
asylum, he failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye,
453 F.3d at 1190.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Juan-Oscorio failed to establish that it is more likely than not he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if returned to
Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). We lack
2 15-71887
jurisdiction to consider Juan-Oscorio’s contention that the IJ’s analysis of his CAT
claim was incomplete because he failed to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Finally, the IJ did not abuse his discretion in determining that Juan-Oscorio
abandoned his application for NACARA benefits, where he did not file a
completed application with the immigration court by the deadline the IJ imposed.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (authorizing IJs to set filing deadlines and stating that
an application not filed by the deadline “shall be deemed waived”). We lack
jurisdiction to review Juan-Oscorio’s due process contention because he failed to
raise it to the BIA. See Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 2013)
(“[C]hallenges to procedural errors correctable by the administrative tribunal, must
be exhausted before we undertake review.” (citation and internal quotation
omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-71887