N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSE AB R

AHAM PEREZ-R ODAR TE, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-71652 Age n c y No. A079-286-704 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d July 22, 2014 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, C ANB Y, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s . Jose Abra ham Pe re z -R oda

rte , a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for withholding of re m ova l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie wfor substa ntia l 

# FIL ED JUL 28 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).e vide nc e fa c tua l findings, Ze haty e v . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006), a nd for a buse of disc re tion theB IA’ s de nia l of a m otion to re m and, deJ

e sus Me le nde z v . Gonzale

s , 503 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th C ir. 2007). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s finding tha

t Pe re z -R oda

rte fa ile d to e s ta b lish tha t he suffe re d ha

rm rising to the

le ve l of pa st pe rse c ution whe n he and his fa m ily we re atta c ke d by

ga ng m e m be rs. Se e Li v . Ashc roft , 356 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th C ir. 2004) (e n ba n c ) (de sc ribing pe rse c ution a s a n “ e xtre m e c onc e pt” ). Substa ntia l e vide nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s finding tha

t Pe re z -R o da

rte did not de m onstra

te a c le a r proba bility of future pe rse c ution be c a use he did not show tha

t he c a nnot re l oc ate inte rna lly

to a void ha rm , se e Oc hav ev . IN

S , 254 F.3d 859, 867-68 (9th C ir. 2001), or tha t the gove rnm e nt c annot or will not c ontrol his atta c k e rs, se e Rahimzade h v . Holde r , 613 F.3d 916, 923 (9th C ir. 2010). The re c o rd doe s not support Pere z -R oda rte ’ s c onte ntion tha

t the situa tion in M e xic o is ana logous to the situa

tion we de sc ribe d in Ha iti in De sir v . Ilc he rt , 840 F.2d 723 (9th C ir. 1988). Thus, Pere z -R oda rte ’ s withholding of re

m ova l c la im

fa ils. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing Pe re z -R oda rte ’ s m otion to re m and for c onside rat i on of ne w e vide nc e . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c ) (a m otion to re ope n sha ll not be grante d unle ss it a ppe ars to theB IA that the pe titione r’ s 1 2 - 7 1 6 5 2 2e vide nc e “ wa s not a va ila ble and c ould not ha

v e be e n disc ove re d or pre se nte d at the form e r he aring” ). W e de c line t o c onside r e vide nc e tha t is not pa rt of the a dm inistra

tive re c ord. Se e Fishe r v . IN S , 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th C ir. 1996) (e n ba nc ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 1 6 5 2 3