
    Jose Abraham PEREZ-RODARTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71652.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2014.
    
    Filed July 28, 2014.
    John E. Ricci, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Nicole Prairie, 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).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Abraham Perez-Rodarte, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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 for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand, de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir.2007). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Perez-Rodarte failed to establish that he suffered harm rising to the level of past persecution when he and his family were attacked by gang members. 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 Perez-Rodarte did not demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution because he did not show that he cannot relocate internally to avoid harm, see Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 867-68 (9th Cir.2001), or that the government cannot or will not control his attackers, see Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir.2010). The record does not support Perez-Rodarte’s contention that the situation in Mexico is analogous to the situation we described in Haiti in Desir v. Ilchert, 840 F.2d 723 (9th Cir.1988). Thus, Perez-Rodarte’s. withholding of removal claim fails.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Perez-Rodarte’s motion to remand for consideration of new evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (a motion to reopen shall not be granted unless it appears to the BIA that the petitioner’s evidence “was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing”). We decline to consider evidence that is not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     