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 unani 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 e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 ( 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
H E C T O R O V I D I O P E R E Z ; e t a l., P et i t i o n ers, 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. 07- 71762 A ge nc yN os . A 070- 916- 975 A 095- 186- 031 A 072- 403- 940 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P et i t i on for R evi ew of an O rderof the B oard of Im m i grat i on A ff ai rs S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 18, 2011 ** S an F r an c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: W A L L A C E , N O O N A N , an dC L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L ea d p et i t i on erH ec t or O vi di o P er ez and d er i vat i ve pet i t i on er s M ar i a del R os ar i o R a m i r e z and W a l de m arP e r e z V a s que z pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w of

de c i s i ons of th e Bo ar do f

I mmi g r a t i o n A p p e a l s d e n y i n g th e i rap p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, 

# FI LED

MA R 25 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l an dp r o te c tio n u n d e rth e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e . P et i t i on er s a l so se ek re vi ew of the B IA ’ s dec i si on denyi ng a m ot i on t o reopen ba s e d on ac l a i m of

i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of

c ouns e l . W e de nythe pe t i t i on f or r e v ie w . T he B I A ’ s de c i s i on t o de nya s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l and pr ot e c t i on un der the C on vent i on A gai nstT orture m ustbe up hel d i f “ supp ort ed by re as on abl e, subst ant i al , and p robat i ve evi dence on the re cord consi dere d as aw ho l e. ” Mol i naEs tra da v . I

NS , 2 9 3 F .3 d1 0 8 9 , 1 0 9 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e B I A ’s d e c is io n n o t to r e o p e n th e ap p lic a tio n is r e v ie w e df o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . I

N S v . D o h e r ty , 502 U .S . 3 1 4 , 3 2 3 - 2 4 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . Pe r e z d i dn o th a v e p e r s o n a l c o n t a c tw i th th e g u e rr i l l a s b yw h o m h e c l a i ms he w as pers ec ut ed. H e pre se nt ed no evi dence t o est abl i sh the gu erri l l as ’ m ot i ves f orw ant i ng t o harm hi m . A n i m put e d pol i t i c a l opi ni on m us tbe pr ove n thr ough f a c ts in e v id e n c e th a t s h o w th e p e r s e c u to r ’s m o tiv e s . Se e Na v a s v . I NS , 217 F . 3d 6 4 6 , 6 5 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( ap p lic an t m u s t p r e s e n t “ s o me e vi de nc e , di r e c tor ci rc um st ant i al ” thatthe ac t s of per se cut i on w er e m ot i vat ed by on e of the prot ec t ed gr ounds ) ( quot i ng I

N S v . E l i as - Zac ar i as , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 3 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; see a l so Sa n gh a v . I

NS , 103 F . 3d 1482, 1487 ( 9th C i r . 1997) ( “ T he pe t i t i one rm us tpr ove s o m e th in g m o r e th an v io le n c e p lu s ad is p ar ityo f v ie w s ” ) . P e r e z ’s m e m b e r s h ip in3

the G ua t e m a l an c i vi l pa tr ol and hi s r anki ng a s the pa tr ol ’ s c om m i s s i one rdo not s u f f ic e to s h o w an im p u te dp o litic a l o p in io n . A rr i aga- B arr e i ne tos , 937 F . 2d 411, 414 ( 9th C i r . 1991) ( m anda t orys e rvi c e i n the G ua t e m a l an m i l i t arydi d not d e m o n s tr a te im p u te dp o litic a l o p in io n ) . A d d itio n a lly , s in c e P e r e z f a ile dto pr oduc e anye vi de nc e t o s how tha the w oul d l i ke l ybe t ortur e d by , orthr ough the ac qu i es ce nce of the G uat em al an go vernm ent , he i s i nel i gi bl e f or prot ec t i on un der th e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e . See Zh e n gv . A s h c ro ft , 3 3 2 F .3 d1 1 8 6 , 1 1 9 4 ( 9 th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) (h o l d i n g th att o q u al i fy fo r p ro t ect i o n u n d er th e co n v en t i o n ag ai n st to rtu r e , an a lie n m u s t s h o w th a t h e w ill m o r e lik e lyth an n o t b e to rtu r e din h is ho m e c ou ntryi f r em ov ed). F i nal l y, the fa i l ure of P er ez ’ s att orney t o i nform hi m of deri vat i ve pet i t i on er R am irez ’s re ce ip t o f T em p o ra ry P ro tected S tatu s h ad n o b ea rin g o n P er ez ’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 pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e . See R ay v. G on zalez , 43 9 F . 3d 58 2, 58 8 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). T he att orney’ s e rr or al so di d n otprej ud i ce R am i re z, w ho , i n rec eiptof her n e w s ta tu s , w a s n o lo n g e rd e p o rtab le . See 8 C F R § 1 2 4 4 .1 0 ( f ) ( 2 ) ( i) . P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.