Juan Gonzalez-Pedro 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JUAN GONZALEZ-PEDRO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71783
Agency No. A200-569-821
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Juan Gonzalez-Pedro, 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 (“CAT”). We have
FILED
SEP 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-71783 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we
deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Gonzalez-Pedro established
extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum
application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Accordingly, his asylum application
fails.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Gonzalez-Pedro failed
to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of a
protected ground based on having been bullied by children in school and
threatened by his uncle. See Parussimova v. Holder, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.
2009) (The Real ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central
reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); see also Molina-Morales v. INS,
237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal retribution is not persecution on
account of a protected ground). Accordingly, Gonzalez-Pedro’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection
because Gonzalez-Pedro failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government

-- 2 of 3 --

12-71783 3
if returned. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008) (denying
petition for relief under CAT because petitioner failed to demonstrate it was more
likely than not that she would be tortured “at the instigation of, or with the
acquiescence of the Philippine government”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --