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 J AC I NT O JUA N C AR HU AZ RODRI GU EZ , 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. 07- 74048 A ge nc yN o. A 099- 340- 903 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 S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B e f o r e : S I L V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N a n dN .R . S M I T H , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . J a c i nt o Juan C arhua z R odr i gue z , na t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of P e ru, pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of a B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an 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 ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of



# FI LED SEP 22 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 74048 2 r e m ova l , and r e l i e f

unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e ha ve j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i alevi dence fa ctual f in d in g s , I N S v . E l i as - Zac ar i as , 502 U . S . 478, 481 ( 1992) , a nd w e de nythe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. C a rhua z doe s notr a i s e a nya r gum e nt s i n hi s ope ni ng br i e f r e gar di ng the a g e n c y ’s d is p o s itiv e d e te rm in a tio n th a t h is a s y lu m c la im w a s tim e - b arr e d . See M a r t i n ez - Se rra n o v . I

NS , 94 F . 3d 1256, 1259- 60 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( i s s ue s not supp ort ed by ar gu m entar e dee m ed w ai ved). S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s deni alof w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al b ecau se C arh u az fai l edt o d em o n strat e th atan i m p u t edp o l i t i cal o p i n i o n w as a c e n tr a l r e a s o n th e S h in in g P a th m is tr e a te dh im in th e p a s t o rw o u ldh arm h im in th e f u tu r e . See P arussim ova v. Mukasey , 555 F . 3d 734, 740- 41 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( “ T he R e a l I D A c tr e qui r e s tha tapr ot e c t e d gr ound r e pr e s e nt‘ one c e ntr a l r e a s on’ f o ran a s y lu m ap p lic an t’s p e r s e c u tio n ” ) ; E l i as - Zac ar i as , 50 2 U . S . at48 3 (a p et i t i o n er m u st“ est ab l i sh th atth e reco rd. . . co m p el s th e co n cl u si o n h e h as a

‘ w e l l - f o u n d e df e ar ’ th a tth e g u e r i l l a s w i l l p e r s e c u t e h i m b e c a u s e o f thatpo l i t i ca l o p in io n , r a th e rth an b e c au s e o f h is r e f u s a l to f ig h t w ith th e m ” ) ( e m p h a s is in ori gi nal ).07- 74048 3 S ub st ant i alevi dence al so supp ort s the agency’ s deni alof C A T re l i ef because C a rh u a z h a s n o t e s tab lis h e dit is m o r e lik e lyth an n o t h e w ill b e to rtu r e db yo rw ith th e a c q u ie s c e n c e o f

th e P e ru v ian g o v e rn m e n t. See Si laya v. Mukasey , 524 F . 3d 1 0 6 6 , 1 0 7 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.