FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAUL NERY LOPEZ-VIRULA, No. 10-73921
Petitioner, Agency No. A076-587-730
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013 **
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Saul Nery Lopez-Virula, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
*
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).
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and review de novo claims of due process violations,
Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Lopez-Virula fears persecution by the Guatemalan government or military
because he witnessed a kidnapping in 1984, and because his father, a former major
in the Guatemalan military, was killed in 1991.
We reject Lopez-Virula’s contention that the agency failed to consider all of
the evidence in assessing his claims. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592,
603 (9th Cir.2006) (the agency is presumed to have considered the entire record).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that the threats Lopez-
Virula received in Guatemala did not amount to past persecution. See Lim v. INS,
224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone, . . . constitute past
persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so
menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.”) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s decision that
Lopez-Virula failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in Guatemala.
2 10-73921
See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future
persecution too speculative); Castillo v. INS, 951 F.2d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 1991)
(well-founded fear may be undermined by petitioner’s “safe and undisturbed
residence in his homeland after the occurrence of the event which is alleged to
have induced his fear”); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (claim
of persecution upon return is undermined when applicant has returned to native
country without incident). Consequently, his asylum claim fails.
Because Lopez-Virula did not establish his eligibility for asylum, it follows
that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Rostomian v. INS, 210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir. 2000).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Lopez-Virula failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government if returned. See
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
We lack jurisdiction to review Lopez-Virula’s contention that the IJ was
biased because he failed to raise this issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). We reject any remaining contention that
Lopez-Virula’s proceedings were unfair. See Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales,
3 10-73921
497 F.3d 919, 927 (9th Cir. 2007) (rejecting due process claim where petitioner
“was given a full and fair opportunity to present his case”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
4 10-73921