Santiago Vega-Ruiz 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SANTIAGO VEGA-RUIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73107
Agency No. A070-639-636
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Santiago Vega-Ruiz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 applications for
cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
FILED
AUG 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-73107 2
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). We dismiss in part and deny
in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Vega-Ruiz’s challenge to the agency’s denial
of his claim for cancellation of removal. See de Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d
810, 814 (9th Cir. 2009) (court lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary
determination of whether petitioner’s relatives are likely to suffer exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship). Further, contrary to Vega-Ruiz’s contention, the
agency fully considered the factors relevant to the hardship determination.
Vega-Ruiz testified he was attacked during the robbery of a liquor store,
received various threats, and fears future persecution by guerrillas based on his
prior military service. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
the attack and threats do not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (mistreatment including beating and
unfulfilled threats of harm or death was not “so severe as to compel a finding of
past persecution”). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination
that Vega-Ruiz did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Nagoulko
v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (crediting petitioner’s subjective fear

-- 2 of 3 --

11-73107 3
but concluding it was “too speculative” and thus “not objectively reasonable under
the circumstances of this case”); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001)
(“[a]n applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, . . .
when the applicant has returned to the country without incident”). Accordingly,
Vega-Ruiz’s asylum claim fails.
Because Vega-Ruiz failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum,
his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at
1190.
Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Vega-Ruiz failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be
tortured at the instigation of or with the acquiescence of the government if returned
to Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, in light of our conclusions, we reject Vega-Ruiz’s contention that
the BIA erred in not reaching the issue of his credibility, and we do not reach
Vega-Ruiz’s arguments that the IJ erred in finding him not credible. See Ramirez-
Altamirano v. Holder, 563 F.3d 800, 804 (9th Cir. 2009) (this court’s review is
limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --