NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERTO HERNANDEZ

- CICA, AKA Josue Gonzalez, AKA Pedro Martinez Bolvito, AKA Pedro Matias Bolvito,

Petitioner,

v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent. No. 16

- 72179

Agency No. A200

- 244

- 015

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2017 **

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Roberto Hernandez

- Cica, native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of the Board of Imm igration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 1 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 72179

withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) , and
voluntary departure . Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Colmenar v.

INS , 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) , and we review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings
, Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Contrary to Hernandez

- Cica ’s contention, the BIA did not issue a

str eamlined order in his case.

Hernandez

- Cica does not challenge the agency’ s dispositive finding that his
asylum application was untimely and that he failed to establish extraordinary

circumstances to excuse his untimely filing

. Thus, w e deny the petition for review

as to asylum.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that , even if

credible, Hernandez

- Cica failed to establish his experiences in Guatemala rose to
the level of persecution

. S ee Lim v. INS , 224 F.3d 929, 9 36 (9th Cir. 2000)
(“Threats standing alone . . . 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 omitte d) . Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s conclusion that Hernandez

- Cica failed to establish that it is

more likely than not he will be persecuted if returned to Guatemala

. S ee Nagoulko3 16

- 72179

v. INS , 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecut ion “too
speculative”)

. Further, s ubstantial evidence suppo rts the agency’s denial of Hernandez

Cica ’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he will
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Guatemala

. See Silaya , 524 F.3d at 1073.
Finally, w e lack jurisdic tion to consider Hernandez

- Cica ’s contentions
regarding voluntary departure b ecause he failed to raise them to the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 6 74, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.