Carlos Pereira-Hernandez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS PEREIRA-HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 10-72881
11-72916
Agency No. A070-947-061
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Carlos Pereira-Hernandez, 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 Pereira-Hernandez’s applications for asylum and withholding of
FILED
MAY 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-72881 2
removal (No. 10-72881), and of the BIA’s subsequent order denying Pereira-
Hernandez’s motion to reopen (No. 11-72916). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2006), and review
for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petitions for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the anonymous
threats Pereira-Hernandez 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 and citation omitted). We lack jurisdiction to consider
Pereira-Hernandez’s contention that he suffered past persecution when armed men
threatened him, because he did not raise this argument to the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s determination that Pereira-Hernandez failed to establish a well-founded
fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. See Molina-Estrada, 293

-- 2 of 3 --

10-72881 3
F.3d at 1095-96 (petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable fear of future
persecution). Accordingly, Pereira-Hernandez’s asylum claim fails.
Because Pereira-Hernandez failed to meet the lower burden of proof for
asylum, it follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pereira-Hernandez’s
motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where he did not
establish that counsel’s failure to secure translated copies of news articles may
have affected the outcome. See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793-94 (a petitioner must
establish prejudice to prevail on an ineffective assistance claim). We lack
jurisdiction to address Pereira-Hernandez’s contentions that counsel was
ineffective for failing to elicit certain testimony and failing to discuss the Country
Report, because he failed to raise these arguments to the BIA. See Barron, 358
F.3d at 678.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --