Jesus Ramos Bautista v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS RAMOS BAUTISTA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73819
Agency No. A096-159-143
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Ramos Bautista, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and
FILED
DEC 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Nahrvani v.
Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Bautista established changed
or extraordinary circumstances sufficient to excuse his untimely filed asylum
application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Accordingly, we deny the petition
as to his asylum claim.
Bautista, an indigenous Guatemalan who served in the civil patrol, testified
soldiers thought he assisted the guerrillas while he lived in Guatemala. Bautista
also testified that, while gangs never physically harmed him, and neither he nor his
family members have had any particular problems with gangs, gangs now pose a
problem. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Bautista
failed to establish either past persecution or that it is more likely than not he would
be persecuted upon his return to Guatemala. See Nahrvani, 399 F.3d at 1153-54
(threats, harassment, and property damage did not constitute past persecution, and
fear of future persecution was too speculative). Accordingly, Bautista’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
09-73819 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Bautista’s CAT
claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
returned to Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.
2008).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary
determination that Bautista did not make the requisite showing of exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship to be eligible for cancellation of removal. See
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
09-73819 3

-- 3 of 3 --