Franco Fernando Sebastian Gaspar v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCO FERNANDO SEBASTIAN
GASPAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71728
Agency No. A072-542-355
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Franco Fernando Sebastian Gaspar, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed
FILED
DEC 15 2014
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 --

by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Sebastian Gaspar’s contentions on appeal
regarding the IJ’s partial adverse credibility finding, because he did not raise these
arguments in his brief to the BIA. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208
(9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (per curiam) (failure to raise an issue in the brief to the
BIA, even if it was raised in the notice of appeal, means the claim was not
exhausted and the court lacks jurisdiction to review).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Sebastian Gaspar has
not shown past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account
of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-82 (1992);
Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1995) (facts did not compel a finding
of past persecution); Nagoulko v. INS, 33 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)
(possibility of future persecution too speculative). Thus, Sebastian Gaspar’s
asylum claim fails.
Because Sebastian Gaspar failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
12-71728 2

-- 2 of 3 --

necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
12-71728 3

-- 3 of 3 --