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 pa ne 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 L U IS E M IR O B A R R IO S M E N D O Z A ; et a l., 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- 74394 A ge nc yN os . A 096- 351- 672

A 096- 351- 673 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 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 ugus t2, 2011 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , IK U T A , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L ui s E m i ro B arri os M endo zaand h i s w i fe , nat i ves and ci t i ze ns of C ol om bi a, pet i t i on pro se f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order d is m is s in g th e irap p e a l f r o m a n im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s ( “I J ” ) d e c is io n d e n y in g th e ir appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe 

# FI LED AU G 10 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 74394 2 C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e ( “C A T ” ) , an dd e n y in g th e irm o tio n to r e m an d . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of am ot i on t o r e m a nd, r e vi e w de novo que s t i ons of l aw , a nd r e vi e w f

or s ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e f

a c tu a l f in d in g s . R om er o-R uiz v . Mukasey , 538 F . 3d 1057, 1 0 6 1 - 6 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s det erm i nat i on thatpet i t i on er s f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha tgue rr i l l a s ha ve ha rm e d orw i l l ha rm B arr i os M e ndoz aon a c c o u n t o f

a n im p u te dp o litic a l o p in io n . Se e I N S v . E l i as - Zac ar i as , 502 U . S . 478, 481 n. 1 ( 1992) ( “ [ t ] o r e ve r s e the B I A f i ndi ng w e m us tf

i nd tha tthe e vi de nc e not o n l y su p p o rt s th a t c o n c lu s io n , b u t co m p el s it” ) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) ; Sangha v. I NS , 10 3 F . 3d 14 82 , 14 88 -91 (9th C i r. 19 97 ). A cc ordi ng l y, w e deny the pet i t i on as to p e titio n e r s ’ a s y lu m a n dw ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l c la im s . S ub st an t i al ev i d en ce sup p o rt s th e ag en cy’ s d en i al o f C A T rel i ef b ecau se p e titio n e r s d idn o t e s tab lis h alik e lih o o do f to rtu r e b y , a t th e in s tig a tio n o f , o rw ith the consentor ac qu i es ce nce of a publ i c off i ci alor other pers on ac t i ng i n an o ff i ci al c ap a c ityif

r e tu rn e dto C o lo m b ia . See A rteaga v. Mukasey , 511 F . 3d 940, 948- 49 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). W e r ej ec tpet i t i on er s’ cont ent i on thatthe IJdi d n otconsi der the evi dence, b e c au s e th e yh a v e n o t o v e r c o m e th e p r e s u m p tio n th e a g e n c yr e v ie w e dth e r e c o r d .08- 74394 3 Se e La r i ta -M

a r t i n ezv . I

NS , 2 2 0 F . 3 d1 0 9 2 , 1 0 9 5 -9 6 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ). W e al so r e j e c tpe t i t i one r s ’ c ont e nt i on tha tthe yw e r e de ni e d due pr oc e s s ba s e d on i ndi s c e rni bl e a nd m i s s i ng w or ds i n the tr ans c r i ptbe c aus e pe t i t i one r s ha ve not d e m o n s tr a te dh o w th is a f f e c te dth e o u tc o m e o f

th e irp r o c e e d in g s . Se e La ta v . I NS , 204 F . 3d 1241, 1246 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( r e qui r i ng e rr ora nd pr e j udi c e t o pr e va i l on a du e proces s c l ai m ). F i na l l y , 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 pe t i t i one r s ’ m ot i on to r e m a n db a s e do n in e f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l, b e c au s e p e titio n e r s f a ile dto d e m o n s tr a te th e yw e r e p r e ju d ic e db yth e c o n du c t o f th e irf o rm e ra tto rn e y s . Se e i d. ; se e al so B lan co v. Mukasey , 518 F . 3d 714, 722 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( no pr e j udi c e f r om c ouns e l ’ s f

a i l ur e t o c a l l aw i tne s s be c aus e a ddi t i ona l t e s t i m onyl i ke l yw oul d not have changed the out com e) ; O r t i zv . I NS , 179 F . 3d 1148, 1153- 54 ( 9th C i r . 1999) (att orney’ s f

ai l ure t o el i ci tt es t i m on y r egar di ng pet i t i on er ’ s a sy l um cl ai m w as i nsuffi ci entt o est abl i sh prej ud i ce ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.