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 a nd 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 pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s tha tthi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w i tho utoralar gu m ent . F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H onor abl e J ohn R . T unhe i m , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJudge f orthe ** * D i s tr i c tof

M i nne s ot a , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on.

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 LU I S EN RI Q U E RECI N O S- LO BO S, J O SE G ERA RD O RECI N O S- LO BO S, a n dV I RG I N I A A RA CELI RECI N O SLO BO S, 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. 08- 74318 A ge nc yN os . A 099- 482- 708, A 099- 482- 709, A 099- 670- 941 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P et i t i on for R evi ew of an O rderof the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 16, 2013 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: G R A B E R and C H R IS T E N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and T U N H E IM , D i stri ct *** Ju d g e . 

# FI LED JU N 06 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

P e t i t i one r s L ui s E nr i que R e c i nos - L obos , J os e G e r a r do R e c i nos - L obos , a nd V i r gi ni aA r a c e l i R e c i nos - L obos pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w of

a n or de rof

the B oa r d of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s ( “ B IA ”) de ny i ng a s y l um a nd de ny i ng w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l . R e vi e w i ng pur e l yl e ga l que s t i ons , s uc h a s w ho be a r s the bur de n of pr oof on a n i s s ue , de novo, S i ngh v. I N S , 94 F . 3d 1353, 1358 ( 9th C i r . 1996) , a nd r e vi e w i ng the B I A ’ s de ni a l of a s y l um f

ors ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e , K r ot ovav. G onz a l e s , 416 F . 3d 1080, 1084 ( 9th C i r . 2005) , w e de nythe pe t i t i on. 1. S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the B IA ’ s f i nd i ng thatL ui s and Jose fa i l ed t o est abl i sh thatthey s uffe re d p as tpers ec ut i on or had a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (42); se e al so 8 U .S .C . § 11 58 (b)( 1). E ven c ons i de r i ng L ui s a nd J os e ’ s e xpe r i e nc e s i n l i ghtof V i r gi ni a ’ s e xpe r i e nc e s , the r e c or d doe s notc om pe l the c onc l us i on thatthe unf ul f i l l e d thr e a t s a ga i ns tL ui s a nd J os e w e r e s o m e na c i ng a s t o a m ountt o pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, L i m v. I N S , 224 F . 3d 929, 936 ( 9th C i r . 2000) , orthatJose and L ui s’ s f ear of f uture pers ec ut i on w as o b je c tiv e lyw e ll- f

o u n d e d , N

ju g u n av . A s h c r o f

t, 3 7 4 F .3 d7 6 5 , 7 7 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . 2. S ub st ant i alevi dence al so supp ort s the B IA ’ s f i nd i ng thatV i rgi ni a f

ai l ed to e s tab lis h th a t s h e s u f f e r e dp e r s e c u tio n “o n a c c o u n t o f ” h e rp o litic a l o p in io n s . 8 U . S . C . §§ 1101( a ) ( 42) , 1158( b) ( 1) . E ve n vi e w i ng the e vi de nc e i nvol vi ng the pe t i t i one r s c um ul a t i ve l y , the r e c or d doe s notc om pe l the c onc l us i on tha tthe a tt a c ks3

on V i rgi ni a w er e pol i t i ca l l y m ot i vat ed because there i s no d i re ctevi dence of s uch m o tiv a tio n a n dth e r e a r e lo g ic a l, n o n - p o litic a l e x p lan a tio n s f o rth e p e r s e c u tio n . S ee S angh a v. IN S , 10 3 F . 3d 14 82 , 14 90 (9th C i r. 19 97 ). 3. A ddi t i ona l l y , s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the B I A ’ s f i ndi ng tha tthe pe t i t i one r s f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha tthe gove rnm e ntof E l S a l va dorw a s unabl e or un w i l l i ng t o con trol the sources of thei r a l l eged perse cut i on . S ee Ch a n dv I N S, 22 2 F . 3d 10 66 , 10 73 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). P et i t i on er s nevercont ac t ed the autho ri t i es and the l i m i t ed re cord, i ncl ud i ng thatfa ctthatV i rgi ni a’ s l i fe partner, a pol i t i ca l fi gu re , re com m ended thatshe l eave E l S al vado r, do es no tcom pel a c on cl usi on that doi ng s o w oul d ha ve be e n f ut i l e . S e e O rne l a s - C ha ve z v. G onz a l e s , 458 F . 3d 1052, 10 58 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). P e t i t i o n DE NI E D.