Noel Antonio Gutierrez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NOEL ANTONIO GUTIERREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-75102
Agency No. A078-104-704
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Noel Antonio Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions 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 de novo the
FILED
JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-75102 2
agency’s legal determinations and we review for substantial evidence factual
findings. Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the
petition.
Gutierrez contends that he established a clear probability of future
persecution based solely on having suffered past persecution. Substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s determination that Gutierrez failed to establish that the harm he
suffered rose to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179,
1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (harassment and one beating unconnected with any particular
threat did not compel finding of past persecution); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d
336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although a reasonable factfinder could have found this
incident sufficient to establish past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder
would be compelled to do so.”). Further, the record does not compel the
conclusion that Gutierrez has a clear probability of future harm. See Hoxha, 319
F.3d at 1184-85. Because Gutierrrez does not otherwise challenge the agency’s
finding, his withholding of removal claim fails. See Lim, 224 F.3d at 938.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --