N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ISM AEL ARIAS-OSUNA, AKA Ism a e l Aria s, AKA Ism a e l Aria s Osuna , Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-71096 Age n c y No. A205-319-035
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d M arc h 10, 2015 ** B e fore : FARRIS, WARDLAW , a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Ism a e l Aria s-Osuna , a

native and c i tiz e n

of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism i ssing his a p p e a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture



# FIL ED MAR 18 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).(“ C AT” ). Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings a nd de novo c l a im s of due proc e s s viola

tions. Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1011-12 (9th C i r. 2010). W e dism iss in pa

rt a nd de ny in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w. Our re vie w is limite d to thea d m i nistra tive re c ord, so we do not c o nside r the
m ate ria l s re fe re nc e d in a

nd atta c he d to Aria s-Osuna ’ s ope ning brie f that we re not pa rt of the re c ord be fore the a ge nc y . Se e Fishe r v . IN S , 79 F.3d 955, 963–64 (9th C ir. 1996) (e n ba

nc ). W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r any c ha lle nge Aria s -Osuna

m ak e s to the
a ge nc y ’ s dispositive

finding tha

t his a sy lum c la im

wa s tim e -barre d, be c a

use he did not ra ise it to theB IA. Se e Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004). Thus, we de ny the pe tition a s to his a s y lum c la im
. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Aria s -Osuna

did not e sta blish tha t any pa st inc ide nt or future ha rm wa s or would beon a c c ount of a prote c te d ground. Se e Parussimov a v . Muk a se y , 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th C ir. 2009) (prote c te d ground m

ust be ‘ one c e ntra l re a son’ for pe rse c ution); se e also Ay ala v . Holde r , 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th C ir. 2011) (e v e n a ssum ing c o gniz a bility of
soc i a l group, pe titione r m ust show perse c ution on a c c ount of his me m be rship in that group). Thus, Aria s-Osuna ’ s withholding of re m o va l c la im fa ils.

1 3
- 7 1 0 9 6 2Substa ntia l e v ide nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f be c a use Aria s-Osuna

fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t it is more like ly

tha n not he will be torture d if he is re turne d to M e x ic o. Se e Zhe ng v . Holde r , 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th C ir. 2011). Fina lly , we re

je c t Aria s-Osuna ’ s due proc e ss c la i m s be c a use he ha s not shown tha

t the proc e e dings be fore the IJ we re funda m e nta lly unfa ir. S e e Ze tino , 622 F.3d a

t 1014-15; se e also Lata v
. IN S, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quiring e rror and pre

judic e to pre va il on a due proc e ss c la im ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDISM ISSE D in par t; DE NIE D in par t.

1 3
- 7 1 0 9 6 3