Juan Antonio Albanez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 ANTONIO ALBANEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72217
Agency No. A070-924-063
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Juan Antonio Albanez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se 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 protection under the Convention against Torture (“CAT”). Our
FILED
APR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-72217 2
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual determinations, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th
Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Albanez failed to
establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Lim v.
INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[t]hreats . . . constitute past persecution in
only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to
cause significant actual suffering or harm.”) (internal quotation marks omitted);
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future
persecution too speculative). Absent a showing of past persecution, Albanez is not
eligible for humanitarian asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii).
Consequently, his asylum claim fails.
Because Albanez failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that
he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Rostomian v. INS, 210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir. 2000).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Albanez failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Silaya,
524 F.3d at 1073.

-- 2 of 3 --

11-72217 3
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to grant Albanez the discretionary relief he
references.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --