Manuel David Borraez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MANUEL DAVID BORRAEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73961
Agency No. A013-590-835
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.
Manuel David Borraez, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
FILED
SEP 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-73961 2
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d
1031, 1036-37 (9th Cir. 2013); Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 942 n.1 (9th
Cir. 2007). We review for substantial evidence factual findings, INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992), and we deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
Borraez does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is ineligible
for asylum based on his conviction for an aggravated felony.
Borraez does not contend that he suffered past persecution. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s finding that Borraez failed to establish a clear
probability of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th
Cir. 2003) (petitioner’s fear was too speculative to meet the standard for relief).
Accordingly, Borraez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Borraez failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the acquiescence of the government of Colombia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524
F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

-- 2 of 3 --

12-73961 3
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Borraez’s unexhausted due process
claims. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining
this court lacks jurisdiction to consider contentions not raised to the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --