* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### SEP 2 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

FRANCISCO LAREZ-JUAREZ,

Petitioner,

v. JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States,

Respondent. No. 02-9537 (No. A-77-449-486) (Petition for Review)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HARTZ , Circuit Judge, BRORBY , Senior Circuit Judge, and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judge.

Petitioner Francisco Larez-Juarez, a native of Guat emala, seeks review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Imm igration Appeals (BIA), summarily affirming the immigration judge’s denial of Mr. Larez-Juarez’s request for asylum and for withholding of removal. We dism iss the petition for review1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, t his panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. -2- with respect to asylum and deny the petition with r espect to withholding of removal. 1 The immigration judge denied petitioner’s requests on two grounds: (1) lack of timeliness; and (2) failure to demonstr ate eligibility for political asylum or withholding of removal. The immigration judge held that petitioner’s asylum request was time-barred because it was not f iled within one year after he arrived in the United States, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), and because petitioner had not shown materially changed or extraordinary c ircumstances excusing the delay, see § 1158(a)(2)(D). Federal Circuit Courts uniformlyhold that they lack jurisdiction to review a determination of timelines s, as we have so held. Tsevegmid v. Ashcroft , 336 F.3d 1231, 1234-35 (10th Cir. 2003) (interpre ting the jurisdictional limitation set out in 8 U.S.C. § 115 8(a)(3)). Accordingly, we do not address petitioner’s arguments concerning the timel iness of his application and therefore do not consider his challenge to the deni al of asylum. This court does, however, have jurisdiction to revi ew the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal, id. at 1235. To show entitlement to withholding, an applicant must present “evidence establishing that it is more likely than not that-3-

[the applicant] would be subject to persecution” du e to his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. INS v. Stevic , 467 U.S. 407, 429-30 (1984). “Where, as here, th e BIA summarily affirms or adopts an immigration judge’s decision, this cou rt reviews the judge’s analysis as if it were the BIA’s.” Tsevegmid, 336 F.3d at 1235. The administrative “findings of fact are conclusive unless the record demonstrates that any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclu de to the contrary.” Id. (quotations omitted). In ruling on the substance of petitioner’s claim fo r relief, the immigration judge found that petitioner departed from Guatemalain 1994 due to the general circumstances of civil war and that, though there w as still unrest in Guatemala related to criminal activities, the civil war was e ffectively terminated with the signing of peace accords in 1996. Petitioner had n ot identified a potential persecutor or demonstrated that he would be subjectto torture upon a return to Guatemala. Thus, the immigration judge concluded t hat petitioner failed to meet his burden to show past persecution or a well-found ed fear of future persecution. Consequently, petitioner failed to meet the higher standard for withholding of deportation. After our review of the record, we co nclude that the immigration judge’s decision is supported by substantial recordevidence and that a-4-

“reasonable adjudicator” would not be compelled on appeal to reject the judge’s findings of fact.

Conclusion As to the denial of the asylum application, we DISM ISS the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. We DENY the petit ion for review with regard to the denial of withholding of removal.

Entered for the Court

Timothy M. Tymkovich Circuit Judge