Jose Derio Villalobos, a.k.a. Jose Eber Villalobos, a.k.a. Jose Derio Villalobos Moreira 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE DERIO VILLALOBOS, a.k.a. Jose
Eber Villalobos, a.k.a. Jose Derio
Villalobos Moreira,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71361
Agency No. A094-305-841
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jose Derio Villalobos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
FILED
JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 10-71361
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). 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 dismiss in part and deny in part the petition
for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Villalobos’ challenges to the IJ’s denial of
asylum and CAT relief, because, as noted by the BIA, he failed to raise them to the
BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004); Abebe v.
Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1040 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (BIA may limit the
scope of its adoption of the IJ’s decision).
Villalobos testified guerrillas threatened him on account of his past military
service, but never physically harmed him. Villalobos claims he now fears harm
from guerrillas and gangs in El Salvador based on his past military service.
Substantial evidence supports agency’s determination that Villalobos did not suffer
harm rising to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (9th
Cir. 2000) (unfulfilled threats, without more, generally do not constitute past
persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
Villalobos failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution on account of
a protected ground. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)

-- 2 of 3 --

3 10-71361
(possibility of future persecution too speculative); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622
F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The REAL ID Act of 2005 places an additional
burden on [petitioner] to demonstrate that one of the five protected grounds will be
at least one central reason for his persecution.”). Accordingly, Villalobos’
withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --