Antonio Francisco Pablo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ANTONIO FRANCISCO PABLO, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70451
Agency Nos. A076-861-484
A078-368-597
A078-368-598
A078-368-599
A099-360-720
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Antonio Francisco Pablo and his four sons, natives and citizens of
Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying
Francisco Pablo’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
FILED
OCT 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-70451 2
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings and review de novo
legal determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009).
We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We dismiss Francisco Pablo’s contention that the IJ incorrectly characterized
the reason he is afraid to return to Guatemala because this argument was not
exhausted before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004).
Francisco Pablo does not argue that he suffered past persecution, but instead
that he will be persecuted in Guatemala in the future. Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s finding that Francisco Pablo failed to establish an objective,
well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (no objective future fear
where petitioner submitted no specific evidence to support her fear that the
Communist party would regain power in the Ukraine and kill her). Substantial
evidence also supports the IJ’s denial of relief because Francisco Pablo remained
unharmed in Guatemala after he was discharged from the Civil Patrol. See Castillo
v. INS, 951 F.2d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 1991) (concluding that petitioner failed to
establish a well-founded fear where he remained in Nicaragua for five years

-- 2 of 3 --

10-70451 3
without incident after being subject to government interrogation on four separate
occasions). Accordingly, Francisco Pablo’s asylum claim fails.
Francisco Pablo did not challenge the agency’s findings regarding
withholding of removal or CAT relief. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091
n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that petitioner waived withholding of removal and
CAT claims when he failed to raise them in his brief). Accordingly, we deny the
petition as to these claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --