Feliciano Garcia-Lopez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FELICIANO GARCIA-LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73902
Agency No. A097-126-099
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Feliciano Garcia-Lopez, 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 and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
JUL 30 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 2 --

de novo questions of law and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Garcia-Lopez established
changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application.
See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646,
657-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the harassment,
robbery, and threats Garcia-Lopez experienced in Guatemala, even considered
cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at
1059-60. Thus, Garcia-Lopez is not entitled to a presumption of future
persecution. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 239 F.3d 1089, 1094 (9th Cir. 2002).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Garcia-Lopez
failed to demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution on account of a
protected ground. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003)
(evidence did not compel finding that it was more likely than not petitioner would
be persecuted if returned); Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1486 (9th Cir. 1997).
Thus, Garcia-Lopez’s withholding of removal claim also fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-73902 2

-- 2 of 2 --