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 I SAURO FRANCI SC O RAM I RE ZB R AV 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. 08- 70092 A ge nc yN o. A 070- 677- 376 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 29, 2010 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , L E A V Y , an dG R A B E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Is auro F ranci sc o R am i re z- B ravo , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f G uat em al a, p e titio n s f

o rr e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ o r d e rd is m is s in g h is appe a l f r om a n 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 ons f or c a nc e l l a t i on of

r e m ova l , a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a s w e l l a s de ny i ng



# FI LED JU L 09 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 70092 2 h is r e q u e s t f

o rac o n tin u an c e . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e re vi ew for abu se of di sc re t i on the deni alof a r equestfor acont i nu ance , N a ka m o to v . A s h c r o ft , 36 3 F . 3d 87 4, 88 3 n . 6 (9th C i r. 20 04 ), and w e r evi ew for s ub st ant i al e v id e n c e th e a g e n c y ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s , Zehat

ye v. G on zales , 453 F . 3d 1182, 1184- 8 5 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) . We d e n yi n p arta n dd i s m i s s i n p artth 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 a ge nc y ’ s c onc l us i on tha tR a m i r e z - B r a vo fa i l ed t o d em on strat e e l i gi bi l i ty f or as ylum , w here he t es t i fi ed t o suffe ri ng no harm in th e p a s t an dh e a d m itte dto h a v in g n o f e aro f r e tu rn in g to G u a te m a la . See Ra tn a m v . I

NS , 15 4 F . 3d 99 0, 99 4 (9th C i r. 19 98 ) ( “ E i ther pas tpers ec ut i on or a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on prov i des e l i gi bi l i ty f or a di sc re t i on ary gr a ntof a s y l um . ” ) . B e c aus e R a m i r e z - B r a vo f a i l e d t o s a t i s f

ythe l ow e rs t anda r d of pr oof f ora s y l um , he ne c e s s ar i l yf a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e e l i gi bi l i tyf orw i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l. Se e Fa ra h v . A s h c r o ft , 34 8 F . 3d11 53 , 11 56 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). T h e ag en cy d i dn o tab u se i t s d i scret i o n b y d en yi n g R am i rez-B rav o ’ s req u est f o rac o n t i n u an c e , wh e r e th e n e e df o rac o n t i n u an c e wa s b a s e dl ar g e l yo n h i s o wn u n r e a s o n ab le c o n du c t. Se e Ba i r es v . I NS , 85 6 F . 2d 89 , 92 -93 (9th C i r. 19 88 ).08- 70092 3 W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the agency’ s deni alof cancel l at i on of re m ov al o n h a r d s h ip g r o u n d s . See M art i nez-R osas v. G on zales , 42 4 F . 3d 92 6, 93 0 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) .P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art .