Juan Carlos Salan-Perez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN CARLOS SALAN-PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72986
Agency No. A098-175-479
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Juan Carlos Salan-Perez, 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 his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
DEC 19 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 --

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056
(9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Salan-Perez does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his
asylum claim is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60
(9th Cir. 1996) (issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived).
Even if credible, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Salan-
Perez failed to demonstrate he suffered past persecution in Guatemala. See Gu v.
Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (detention, beating, and
interrogation did not compel finding of past persecution); Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d
929, 936-37 (9th Cir. 2000) (unfulfilled threats, without more, generally do not
constitute past persecution). We reject Salan-Perez’s contention that the BIA
failed to give sufficient weight to his evidence. Substantial evidence also supports
the BIA’s determination Salan-Perez failed to establish a clear probability of future
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility
of future persecution too speculative); Castillo v. INS, 951 F.2d 1117, 1122 (9th
Cir. 1991) (claim failed where applicant remained in home country for over five
11-72986 2

-- 2 of 3 --

years after incident without further harm). Consequently, Salan-Perez’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Salan-Perez failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Guatemala.
See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-72986 3

-- 3 of 3 --