Case Name: Carlos Chapen MORALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-19
Citations: 573 F. App'x 646
Docket Number: No. 12-71632
Parties: Carlos Chapen MORALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 573
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
Carlos Chapen MORALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-71632.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2014.
Filed May 19, 2014.
William J. Baker, Moreno & Associates, Chula Vista, CA, for Petitioner.
Kimberly A. Burdge, Esquire, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, 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
Carlos Chapen Morales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that Chapen Morales failed to establish that he suffered harm rising to the level of persecution. See Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc) (describing persecution as "an extreme concept"). Substantial evidence also supports the agency's finding that Chapen Morales did not demonstrate that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (petitioner must provide some evidence of the persecutor's motive); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.2010). Thus, Chapen Morales's asylum claim fails.
Because Chapen Morales failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
The record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Chapen Morales will be tortured by or •with the acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.