Francisco Casia-Macario 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FRANCISCO CASIA-MACARIO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73504
Agency No. A070-930-625
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Casia-Macario, 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 application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
FILED
DEC 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-73504 2
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence factual findings and review de novo questions of law.
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Casia-Macario’s
experiences in Guatemala do not rise to the level of past persecution. See Li v.
Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (“Our caselaw
characterizes persecution as an extreme concept, marked by the infliction of
suffering or harm . . . in a way regarded as offensive.”) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that
Casia-Macario did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in
Guatemala. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility
of future persecution too speculative); see also Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d
1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Casia-Macario’s asylum claim fails.
Because Casia-Macario did not establish eligibility for asylum, he
necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

10-73504 3
Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Casia-Macario did not establish he more likely than not will be tortured if
returned to Guatemala. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1068.
Finally, Casia-Macario’s contention that the IJ made a boilerplate adverse
credibility finding lacks merit because the IJ found Casia-Macario credible. We
lack jurisdiction to consider Casia-Macario’s claim that his case was not fully
developed because he did not exhaust it before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --