T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T P R UD E NS I O C AL MO- P AB L O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 71993 A ge nc yN o. A 088- 734- 224 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d Jul y12, 2011 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , A L A R C Ó N , an dL E A V Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P rude ns i o C a l m o- P abl o, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of G ua t e m a l a , pe t i t i ons f

or r e vi e w of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a l f r om the i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , and r e l i e f

unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . O ur 

# FI LED JU L 22 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 71993

j uri sdi ct i on i s gov erned b y 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i alevi dence th e a g e n c y ’s f

a c tu a l f in d in g s . Sa ntos-L em us v. Mukasey , 5 4 2 F .3 d7 3 8 , 7 4 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . W e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . In h is o p en in g b rief

, C alm o -P ab lo d o es n o t ch allen g e th e a g en cy ’s d isp o siti v e d en ial o f h is as ylu m claim as u n ti m ely. A cc o rd in g ly, C alm o -P ab lo ’s a s y lu m c la im f

a ils . Se e M

ar t i nez - Se rrano v . I

N S, 94 F . 3d 12 56 , 12 59 -60 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 6 ) ( is s u e s n o t s up p o rte db ya r g u m e n t ar e d e e m e dab an d o n e d ) . S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s f i nd i ng thatC al m o-P abl o fai l ed to e s tab lis h p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . See Na g o u lko v . I NS , 33 3 F . 3d 10 12 , 10 15 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) . S ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e a ls o s up p o rts th e a g e n c y ’s f in d in g th a t C a lm o - P ab lo f a ile dto e s tab lis h it is m o r e lik e lyth an n o t h e w ill b e p e r s e c u te dif r e tu rn e dto G u a te m a la . See N

ag ou lko , 333 F . 3d a t1018; La dh a v . I NS , 2 1 5 F .3 d8 8 9 , 8 9 7 ( 9 th C i r . 2000) ( pe t i t i one rm us tpr ovi de c r e di bl e , di r e c t , a nd s pe c i f i c e vi de nc e i n the reco rdo f fact s th atw o u l dsup p o rta reaso n ab l e fear o f p ersecu t i o n ). A cco rd i n g l y, C a lm o - P ab lo ’s w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l c la im f

a ils . F in a lly , s ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e s up p o rts th e a g e n c y ’s f in d in g th a t C a lm o - P ab lo f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h i ti s m or e l i ke l ythan nothe w oul d be t ortur e d byorw i th the a c q u ie s c e n c e o f

ag o v e rn m e n t o f

f ic ia l in G u a te m a la . See A rteaga v. Mukasey , 511 F .3 d9 4 0 , 9 4 8 - 4 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . A c c o r d in g ly , h is C A T c la im f a ils .10- 71993

PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D EN I ED .