Alfonso Marcos Cal Escalante v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFONSO MARCOS CAL
ESCALANTE,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73003
Agency No. A200-975-166
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Alfonso Marcos Cal Escalante, a native of Belize, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
FILED
FEB 29 2016
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 --

the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th
Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Although Cal Escalante argues the merits of his asylum claim, he does not
challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that he failed to show changed or
extraordinary circumstances excused his untimely asylum application. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, we deny
the petition for review as to his asylum claim, including his humanitarian asylum
claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Cal Escalante failed
to establish the threats he received rose to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS,
224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone ... constitute past
persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so
menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.”) (internal quotation and
citation omitted). We do not address Cal Escalante’s claim that he is a member of
a cognizable social group because he never presented it to the agency, see Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to
review claims not raised to the agency), and he does not otherwise challenge the
agency’s finding that he failed to show that a protected ground is a central reason
13-73003 2

-- 2 of 3 --

for the harm he fears. Thus, we deny the petition as to his withholding of removal
claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-73003 3

-- 3 of 3 --