NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 13 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCO ANTONIO GARCIA, AKA Tony No. 15-71974
Garcia,
Agency No. A200-158-208
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 9, 2020**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Marco Antonio Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
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). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Garcia failed
to establish he suffered past persecution in Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1);
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1); Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th
Cir.2011) (domestic abuse that occurred in the United States could not constitute
past persecution). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Garcia failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in
Mexico. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of
future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, his asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Garcia failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at
1190.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Garcia failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
2
We reject as unsupported by the record Garcia’s contentions that the IJ
failed to explain the asylum process or that Garcia was not given an opportunity to
testify.
To the extent Garcia raises claims based on political opinion, humanitarian
asylum, cancellation of removal, his status as a perceived wealthy returnee, age
discrimination, an undisclosed illness, and facts related to past harm in Mexico that
were not raised to the agency, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
claims not presented to the agency).
We do not consider the materials Garcia referenced in and attached to his
opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79
F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Garcia’s request for prosecutorial
discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3