N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT EDGAR M AR TINEZ, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-72743 Age n c y No. A094-314-637 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

June 25, 2014 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, TALLM AN, a nd NGUYEN, C i rc u it Judge s. Edga r M artine z , a

native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture



# FIL ED JUN 26 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). Pe titione r’ s re que s t for ora l argum e nt is de nie d .(“ C AT” ). Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, a n d de novo c la i m s of due proc e s s viola

tions. Singh v . Holde r , 638 F.3d 1264, 1268-69 (9th C ir. 2011). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. Our re vie w is limite d to thea d m i nistra tive re c ord a

nd thus wedo not c onside r e vide n c e inc lude d in theope ning brie f that wa s not pa rt of the re c ord be fore the a ge nc y . S

e e Fishe r v . IN

S , 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th C ir. 1996) (e n ba nc ). The re c ord doe s not c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t M artine z e sta

blishe d e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s to e xc use his untime l y file d a sy lum a pplic ation. Se e 8 C .F.R § 1208.4(a)(5); Dhital v . Muk ase y , 532 F.3d 1044, 1049-50 (9th C ir. 2008). Ac c ordingly , his a sy lum

c la im fa ils. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t M a rtine zfa i le d to e sta blish tha t the ha rm he suffe re d in El Sa lva dor from the El Dia

blo group ha d a ne xus to a

prote c te d ground. Se e N av as v . IN S, 217 F.3d 646, 656 (9th C i r. 2000). Thus, M artine z is not e ntitle d to a pre sum ption of future pe rse c ution. Se e MolinaEstrada v . IN

S , 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th C ir. 2002). Furthe r, substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the

a ge nc y ’ s finding tha

t M artine z fa ile d to de m onstra te it is m ore like ly tha n not he will be pe rse c ute d now in El Salva dor, m ore tha n twe nty y e ars a fte r he

1 2 - 7 2 7 4 3 2le ft. Se e N

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 re je c t M artine z ’ s c onte ntion tha t the a ge nc y ba se d its de c ision on e vide nc e that wa s not in the re c ord. Thus, M artine z ’ s withholding of rem o v a l c la im fa ils. 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 M artine zfa ile d to e s ta

blish tha t it is more like l y

tha n not he will betorture d by or with thec onse nt or a c q

uie sc e nc e of a

gove rnm e n t offic i a l if he re turns to El Sa lva d or. Se e Ze haty e v . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1188 (9th C ir. 2006). Fina lly , we la c k

jurisdic tion to c onside r M artine z ’ s due proc e ss c la im tha t the t ran sla tion a t his im m igrat ion he aring wa s ina de quate , be c a use he did not e xha ust this c onte n tion be fore the B IA. S e e Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004) (c ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to c onside r issue s tha t ha v e not be e n a dm inistra

tive ly e xha uste d ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 2 - 7 2 7 4 3 3