CARLOS GARAY-GUZMAN V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-70362 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 14 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS ALBERTO GARAY-GUZMAN, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-70362 Agency No. A087-534-879 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 9, 2017** Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Carlos Alberto Garay-Guzman, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review * 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). for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review. We do not consider new factual claims referenced in Garay-Guzman’s opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is limited to the administrative record). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if credible, the past harm Garay-Guzman suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (unfulfilled threats generally do not constitute past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Garay-Guzman failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence did not compel a finding of a clear probability of future persecution to qualify for withholding of removal). Thus, Garay-Guzman’s withholding of removal claim fails. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-70362

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.