Case ID: f-appx_320/html/0555-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lisset Yanira CHINCHILLA ACEVEDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73777.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2009.
    
    Filed March 24, 2009.
    Antonio Reyna Salazar, Esq., Adolfo Ojeda-Casimiro, Esq., Salazar Law Offices, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, OIL, Lyle D. Jentzer, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lisset Yanira Chinchilla Acevedo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her 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, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

To the extent Chinchilla Acevedo argues that her untimely filed asylum application should be excused, the record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary circumstances excuse the delay. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4),(5); see also Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181 (9th Cir.2008).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal, because Chinchilla Acevedo failed to demonstrate that the threats and harm she suffered rose to the level of past persecution. See Nagoullco, 333 F.3d at 1016-17. Substantial evidence further supports the agency’s conclusion that Chinchilla Acevedo failed to establish that it is more likely than not that she will be persecuted if she returns to El Salvador. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Chinchilla Acevedo failed to establish that it is more likely than not she will be tortured if she returns to El Salvador. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 435, 443 (9th Cir.2003).

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