Case ID: f-appx_518/html/0565-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arturo Gux GOUXLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72537.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 14, 2013.
    
    Filed May 17, 2013.
    Arturo Gux Gouxla, pro se.
    OIL, Aimee J. Carmichael, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arturo Gux Gouxla, 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, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s denial of Gouxla’s asylum and CAT claims. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (no jurisdiction over legal claims not presented to the BIA).

Gouxla fears harm by individuals with whom he had a land dispute between 1988 and 1990. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal because Gouxla failed to establish the Guatemalan government was unable or unwilling to control these individuals. See Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir.2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.