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 J ORGEN M AN UEL R AM I RE Z ALVA RE Z, 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- 72354 A ge nc yN o. A 094- 041- 052 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 June 15, 2011 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , O ’ S C A N N L A IN an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J or ge n M anue l R a m i r e z A l var e z , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of H ondur a s , pe t i t i ons for r evi ew of a B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s orderdi sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an 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



# FI LED JU N 27 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2 10- 72354

r e m ova l and pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( C A T ) . W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r8 U. S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the B oar d’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tno e xc e pt i ons appl i ed t o excuse A l vare z’ s unt i m el y a sy l um appl i cat i on , fi l ed approx i m at el y t en y e a r s la te . See 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 2) ( B ) ( r e qui r i ng pe t i t i one rt o appl yf ora s y l um w i thi n o ne ye arof arri val i n U ni t ed S t at es un l es s pre vent ed by extra ordi nary ci rc um st ance s or c hang ed ci rc um st ance s m at er i al l y a ff ec t i ng el i gi bi l i ty f

or re l i ef ); T oj -Cul pa tan v. H

older , 61 2 F . 3d 10 88 , 10 90 (9th C i r. 20 10 ) ( per c uri am ). S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the B oard’ s deni alof w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al be c aus e A l var e z f

a i l e d t o s how hi s a l l e ge d pe r s e c ut or s thr e a t e ne d hi m on a c c ount of a prot ec t ed grou nd . H i s f ear of f uture per se cut i on base d o n an actual or i m pu t ed ant i -gang o r ant i -c ri m e opi ni on i s noton ac coun tof the prot ec t ed grou nd of ei ther m e m be r s hi p i n apart i c ul ars oc i a l gr oup orpol i t i c a l opi ni on. R am os B arri os v. H older , 5 8 1 F .3 d8 4 9 , 8 5 4 - 5 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ; Sa ntos-L em us v. Mukasey , 542 F . 3d 7 3 8 , 7 4 5 - 4 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ; s e e O c h a v e v . I NS , 254 F . 3d 859, 865 ( 9th C i r . 2001) (“ A sy l um general l y i s notavai l abl e t o v i ct i m s of c i vi l stri fe , un l es s they are si ng l ed ou ton ac coun tof a prot ec t ed grou nd . ”) S ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e a l s o s upport s the B oar d’ s de ni a l of C A T r e l i e f

ba s e d on the B oar d’ s f

i ndi ng tha tA l var e z di d note s t abl i s h al i ke l i hood of t ortur e by , a tthe3 10- 72354

in s tig a tio n o f

, o rw ith th e c o n s e n t o ra c q u ie s c e n c e o f th e H o n du r an g o v e rn m e n t. See A rteaga v. Mukasey , 51 1 F . 3d 94 0, 94 8-49 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.