NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Immigration 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, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 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 

streamlined 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, we 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. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (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 omitted). 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. See Nagoulko 
3 16-72179 

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

speculative”).

Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of HernandezCica’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, we lack jurisdiction to consider Hernandez-Cica’s contentions 

regarding voluntary departure because he failed to raise them to the BIA. See 

Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.