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 WE NC E S L AO C OL DE R ON - MONZ ON , 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. 11- 73967 A ge nc yN o. A 098- 653- 782 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 N ove m be r13, 2012 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T R O T T , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W e nc e s l a o C ol de r on- M onz on, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of G ua t e m a l a , pe t i t i ons p r o s e f o rr e v ie w o f

aB o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd is m is s in g h is appe a l f r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov aland p rot ec t i on un der the C on vent i on A gai nstT orture 

# FI LED NO V 16 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 73967 2 ( “ C A T ” ) , and of

aB I A ’ s or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i alevi dence the agency’ s f ac tual fi n d i n g s, Sa ntos-L em us v. Mukasey , 5 4 2 F . 3 d7 3 8 , 7 4 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) , a n dwe r e v ie w f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n , Si ng h v. G on zales , 4 9 1 F . 3 d1 0 9 0 , 1 0 9 5 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the B I A ’ s f i ndi ng tha tC ol de r on- M onz on f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha thi s f a m i l ym e m be r s hi p w a s orw oul d be one c e ntr a l r e a s on f o rth e h a rm h e e x p e r ie n c e da n df e ar s in G u a te m a la . See P arussim ova v. Mukasey , 55 5 F . 3d 73 4, 74 0 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( “ [t ] he R ea l ID A ctre qu i re s thata prot ec t ed grou nd re pres ent‘ on e c entra l re as on ’ for an asy l um appl i cant ’ s per se cut i on ”) . In th e ab s e n c e o f

an e x u s to ap r o te c te dg r o u n d , h is w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l c la im f a ils . See O choa v. G on zales , 40 6 F . 3d 11 66 , 11 72 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). S ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e a l s o s upport s the B I A ’ s de ni a l of C A T pr ot e c t i on be c aus e C ol de r on- M onz on f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e i ti s m or e l i ke l ythan nothe w o u ldb e to rtu r e db yo rw ith th e c o n s e n t o ra c q u ie s c e o f ap ub lic o f

f ic ia l in G u a te m a la . Se e Santos -L e m us , 5 4 2 F . 3 dat7 4 8 . A cco rd i n g l y, h i s C A T cl ai m al so fai l s. I n a ddi t i on, the B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng C ol de r onM o n z o n ’s m o tio n to r e o p e n . Se e S i n gh v . I NS , 29 5 F . 3d 10 37 , 10 39 (9th C i r.11- 73967 3 2 0 0 2 ) ( th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n s h a ll b e r e v e r s e do n lyif it is

“ arbi trary , i rr at i on al , or contraryt o l aw . ”) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.