FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAUL ANTONIO PEREZ QUEVEDO, No. 10-70391
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-420-966
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Saul Antonio Perez Quevedo, 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 Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
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 we review de novo due process claims, Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
Perez Quevedo contends he was harmed by the civil patrol in Guatemala due
to his political neutrality. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that
Perez Quevedo failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1 (1992); see also
Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1488 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[An] applicant must not
merely avow his political neutrality ... but must also show that this opinion was
articulated sufficiently for it to be the basis of his past or anticipated persecution.”)
(citation and quotation omitted). Accordingly, Perez Quevedo’s asylum claim
fails. In the absence of past persecution, Perez Quevedo’s humanitarian asylum
claim necessarily fails. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii).
Moreover, because Perez Quevedo failed to satisfy the lower burden of
proof for asylum, it follows that he has not met the higher clear probability
standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
2 10-70391
Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Perez Quevedo’s
CAT claim because he did not establish it is more likely than not he will be
tortured if returned to Guatemala. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th
Cir. 2011).
In addition, we reject Perez Quevedo’s argument that the BIA did not
provide a careful review of the record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
Because Perez Quevedo’s case was initially heard by an asylum officer, we
reject the argument he raises under the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(C).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction over any challenge to the IJ’s denial of a motion
to continue because Perez Quevedo did not raise this issue to the BIA. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 10-70391