N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JESUS R AM OS B AUTISTA, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 09-73819 Age n c y No. A096-159-143 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

Nove m b e r 19, 2013 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, TR OTT, a nd THOM AS, C irc uit Judge s. Je sus R am o s B a

utista , a native and c itiz e n of Gua te m a la , pe titions pro se

for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a p pe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ions for a sy l um , withholding of re m ova l, prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture(“ C AT” ), a nd 

# FIL ED D EC 10 2013 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l . Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa

ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, N ahrv ani v . Gonzale s , 399 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th C ir. 2005), a nd we de ny

in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w. The re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t B a utista e sta blishe d c ha

nge d or e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s suffic ie nt to e xc u se his untime ly file d a sy lum a pplic ation. Se e 8 C .F.R . §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Ac c ordingly , we de ny the pe tition a s to his a sy lum

c la i m . B a utista , an indige nous Gua t e m a la n who se rve d in thec ivil pa t rol, te stifie d soldie rs thought he

a ssiste d the gue rrilla s while he live d in Gua t e m a la . B a

utista a lso te s tifie d tha

t, whilega

ngs ne ve r phy s ic a lly ha

rm e d him , a

nd ne ithe r he nor his fam ily m e m be rs ha v e ha d a ny pa rtic u la r proble m s with ga

ngs, ga ngs now posea proble m . Substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de t e rm i nation tha t B a utista fa ile d to e sta

blish e ithe r pa st pe rse c ution or tha t it is m ore like l y tha

n not he would be pe rse c ute d upon his re turn to Gua te m a la . Se e N

ahrv ani , 399 F.3d a

t 1153-54 (thre at s, ha

ra ssm e nt, a

nd prope rty

dam a ge did not c onstitute pa s t pe rse c ution, a

nd fe ar of future pe rse c ution wa s too spe c ulative ). Ac c ordingly , B a utista ’ s withholding of rem o v a l c la im fa ils.

0 9 - 7 3 8 1 9

2Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of B a

utista ’ s C AT c la im be c a use he fa ile d to e s ta

blish it is m

ore like ly tha n not he will betorture d if re turne d to Gua

t e m a la . Se eSilay a v . Muk a se y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2008). Fina lly , we la c k

jurisdic tion to re vie w the a ge nc y ’ s disc re tiona ry de te rm i nation tha

t B a utista did not make the re quisiteshowing of e xc e ptiona l a nd e xtre m e ly unusua l ha

rdship to bee ligiblefor c an c e lla t ion of re m ova l. Se e Martine z -Rosas v . Gonzale

s , 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th C ir. 2005). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

0 9 - 7 3 8 1 9 3