N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT FR ANC ISC O JAVIER

PALAC IO, a .k.a . Franc isc o Pa la c io Quinta

na , a .k.a . Julio Sa lina s, a .k.a . Julio C arranz a Sa lina s, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-72374 Age n c y No. A094-288-048 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 Fe brua

ry 18, 2014 * * B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a nd FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Franc isc o Ja

vie r Pa la c i o, a

native and c itiz e n of Nic ara gua , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a p pe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ion for a s y lum , withholding of



# FIL ED FEB 24 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, Ze haty ev . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006), a nd we re vie w de novo c la im s of due proc e ss viola tions, C olme nar v . IN

S , 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th C ir. 2000). W e de ny the pe t ition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s finding tha

t Pa la c i o fa ile d

to e sta blish hesuffe re d pa st pe rse c ution on a c c o unt of a prote c te d ground. Se eLin v . Holde r , 610 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe r c uriam ) (ordina ry prose c ution for c rim ina l a c tivity ge n e ra lly not pe rse c ution); P arussimova v . Muk ase y , 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th C ir. 2009) (theREAL ID Ac t “ re quire s tha t a prote c te d ground re pre se nt ‘ one c e ntra l re a son’ for an a sy lum a pplic ant’ s pe rse c ution” ); se ealso Lim v . IN S , 224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (9th C ir. 2000) (unfulfille d thre ats, without m ore , ge ne ra lly do not c onstitute

pa st pe rse c ution). Furthe r, substa ntia l e vide n c e supports the

a ge nc y ’ s finding tha

t Pa la c io did not e sta

blish a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ut ion. Se eN agoulk o v . IN S , 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th C ir. 2003) (possibility

of future pe rse c ut ion too spe c ulative ). W e do not c o nside r the 2010 Stat e De p artm e nt C

ountry Re port on Human Rights Practic e s for Nic ara gua re fe re n c e d in Pa la c io’ s ope ning brie f. Se e Fishe r v . IN S , 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th C ir.

2 1 2 - 7 2 3 7 41996) (e n ba nc ) (this c ourt’ s re vie w is limite d to thea dm inistra tive re c ord). Ac c ordingly , Pa la c io’ s a sy lum c la im fa ils. B e c a use Pa la c io fa ile d to m e e t the lowe r burde n of proof for a sy lum , his c la im for withholding of rem ova l ne c e ssa rily fa ils. Se eZe haty e , 453 F.3d a t 1190. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f be c a u se Pa la c io fa ile d to e sta

b lish it is m

ore like ly tha n not tha t he would be torture d

by or with thec onse nt or a c q

uie sc e nc e of the gove rnm e nt if re t urne d to Nic ara gua . Se e Silay a v . Muk

ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2008). Fina lly , we re

je c t Pa la c io’ s c onte ntion tha t the a ge nc y ’ s de c isions viola te d his due proc e ss rights. Se eLata v . IN S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quiring e rror to pre v a il on a due proc e ss c la im ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

3 1 2 - 7 2 3 7 4