Case ID: f-appx_446/html/0852-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Salmer Dorian CENTENO-MARIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74039.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 8, 2011.
    John E. Ricci, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Imran Raza Zaidi, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Salmer Dorian Centeno-Marin, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Centeno-Marin does not raise any challenge to the agency’s dispositive denial of asylum as time-barred. Accordingly, we deny the petition as to his asylum claim.

Centeno-Marin contends the agency did not address his claim that the election of Daniel Ortega as president of Nicaragua could subject Centeno-Marin to persecution on account of his father’s imputed political opinion. This contention is belied by the record. Apart from this contention, Centeno-Marin does not otherwise challenge the agency’s denial of withholding of removal. Accordingly, we deny the petition as to his withholding claim.

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.