Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 481-82 & 489, 112 S.Ct. 812. He failed to do so. This case is distinguishable from Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799 (9th Cir.2004), where there was evidence that the petitioner suffered persecution separate from efforts by guerrillas to recruit him, which led to a conclusion that the assaults were “punishment for his pro-establishment political opinions.” Id. at 804. Zarate testified that he was not a member of any political group and did not establish that the attacks on him were caused by anything other than his resistance to forced recruitment. Zarate also failed to provide compelling evidence that he would more likely than not be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Guatemalan government if he returned to Guatemala. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003) (<HOLDING>). PETITION DENIED. ** This disposition is not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that cat applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to his native country (B) holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioners argument that the evidence in the record clearly establishes that he is more likely than not to face torture if removed citation quotation marks and brackets omitted (C) holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to review whether alien established that he will more likely than not be tortured if  removed (D) holding that to qualify for protection under the convention against torture an alien must show that he will more likely than not be tortured in his home country if removed (E) holding that petitioner must demonstrate it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon his return
Output (English): holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to review whether alien established that he will more likely than not be tortured if  removed