Case Name: Feliciano GARCIA-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-30
Citations: 584 F. App'x 383
Docket Number: No. 11-73902
Parties: Feliciano GARCIA-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 383–384

Head Matter:
Feliciano GARCIA-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-73902.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2014.
Filed July 30, 2014.
Douglas D. Nelson, Esquire, Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
Annette Marie Wietecha, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Feliciano Garcia-Lopez, a 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 application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Garcia-Lopez established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that the harassment, robbery, and threats Garcia-Lopez experienced in Guatemala, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60. Thus, Garcia-Lopez is not entitled to a presumption of future persecution. See Molino-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1094 (9th Cir.2002). Substantial evidence also supports the'BIA's determination that Garcia-Lopez failed to demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2003) (evidence did not compel finding that it was more likely than not petitioner would be persecuted if returned); Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1486 (9th Cir.1997). Thus, Garcia-Lopez's withholding of removal claim also fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.