Carlos Alberto Garay-Guzman v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ALBERTO GARAY-GUZMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70362
Agency No. A087-534-879
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Alberto Garay-Guzman, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-70362
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
We do not consider new factual claims referenced in Garay-Guzman’s
opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this
court’s review is limited to the administrative record).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if
credible, the past harm Garay-Guzman suffered did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (unfulfilled threats generally do
not constitute past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
determination that Garay-Guzman failed to establish a clear probability of future
persecution. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence
did not compel a finding of a clear probability of future persecution to qualify for
withholding of removal). Thus, Garay-Guzman’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --