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 LA U RA V I RG ELI S RO M O - CA D EN ES, 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- 70378 A ge nc yN o. A 099- 580- 514 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 O c t obe r9, 2012 ** B e f o r e : R A W L I N S O N , M U R G U I A , an dW A T F O R D , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . L aur aV i r ge l i s R om o- C a de ne s , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng her app ea l fr om an i mmi g r a t i o n j u d g e ’ s ( “ I J ” ) d e c i s i o n d e n y i n g h e rap p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , and p rot ec t i on un der the C on vent i on A gai nstT orture 

# FI LED OC T 15 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

( “ C A T ” ) . O urj ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f or s ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e f

a c tu a l f in d in g s a n dr e v ie w d e n o v o q u e s tio n s o f law . W akkaryv. H

older , 558 F . 3d 1049, 1056 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . W e di s m i s s i n parta nd d e n yin p art th e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the IJ ’ s f i nd i ng that , even i f R om o-C adenes f ile datim e lya s y lu m ap p lic a tio n , R o m o - C a d e n e s f a ile dto c arryh e rb u r d e n to e s tab lis h th a t s h e c an n o t r e lo c a te w ith in M e x ic o to a v o idh arm . See Kaise r v . A s h c r o ft , 39 0 F . 3d 65 3, 65 9 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( i n the abse nce of a pre sum pt i on of a w e ll- f o u n d e df u tu r e f e ar , th e p e titio n e rh a s th e b u r d e n o f p r o v in g th a t r e lo c a tio n is unr e a s onabl e ) . R om o- C a de ne s doe s notc ha l l e nge the I J ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha ts he f a ile dto d e m o n s tr a te p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . Se e M a r t i n ez - Se rra n o v . I

NS , 94 F . 3d 1256, 1259- 60 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( i s s ue s nots pe c i f i c a l l yr a i s e d a nd ar gue d i n a party’ s openi ng bri ef

ar e w ai ved). W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o add re ss her unexh aust ed cont ent i on thatshe e st abl i shed a f ear of f uture pers ec ut i on as a m em ber of a d is f a v o r e dg r o up . Se e B a rr o n v . A s h c r o ft , 3 5 8 F .3 d6 7 4 , 6 7 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . A cco rd i n g l y, h er asyl u m cl ai m fai l s. B e c aus e R om o- C a de ne s ha s note s t abl i s he d e l i gi bi l i tyf ora s y l um , s he n e c e s s a r ilyf

a ils to m e e t th e m o r e s tr in g e n t s tan d ar df o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. See Zehat

ye v. G on zales , 4 5 3 F .3 d1 1 8 2 , 1 1 9 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) .3

F i na l l y , R om o- C a de ne s doe s notc ha l l e nge the I J ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha ts he f a ile dto d e m o n s tr a te e lig ib ilityf o rC A T r e lie f

. Se e M ar t i nez - Se rrano , 94 F . 3d at 1259- 60. P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D IS M IS S E D i n p art; D E N IE D i n p art.