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 S ON I A P AD I L L A- C AS T I L L O, 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. 10- 71243 A ge nc yN o. A 099- 579- 899 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 N ove m be r13, 2012 ** B e f o r e : C A N B Y , T R O T T , a n dW . F L E T C H E R , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . S oni aP a di l l a - C a s t i l l o, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng her 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 he rappl 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 C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e ha ve 

# FI LED NO V 19 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2 10- 71243

j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f ors ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e the ag en cy’ s factu al fi n d i n g s, Zehat ye v. G on zales , 45 3 F . 3d 11 82 , 11 84 -85 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) , a n dw e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . P ad il la-C as ti ll o fa il ed to ra ise a n y s u b stan ti v e c h allen g e to th e a g en cy ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t h e ra s y lu m ap p lic a tio n w a s u n tim e ly . See M art i nez- Serran o v. I NS , 94 F . 3d 1256, 1259- 60 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( i s s ue s nots pe c i f i c a l l yr a i s e d a nd a r gue d i n apa rty ’ s ope ni ng br i e f a r e w a i ve d) . A c c or di ngl y , w e de nythe pe t i t i on a s t o h e ra s y l u m c l a i m. S u b s tan tia l e v id e n c e s up p o rts th e a g e n c y ’s f in d in g th a t P a d illa - C a s tillo f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h pa s tpe r s e c ut i on be c aus e s he di d notde m ons tr a t e tha ts he s u f f e r e dd o m e s tic ab u s e in M e x ic o , th e c o u n tryo f r e m o v a l. See 8 C. F. R. § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) ; G on zalez -Medi na v. H older , 641 F . 3d 333, 338 ( 9th C i r . 2011) (d o m est i c ab u se th ato ccu rredi n th e U n i t edS t at es co u l dn o tco n st i tu t e p ast pers ec ut i on ). S ub st ant i alevi dence al so supp ort s the agency’ s f i nd i ng thatP adi l l aC as t i l l o fai l ed t o est abl i sh i ti s m ore l i kel y than n otthatshe w i l l fa ce future p e r s e c u tio n in M e x ic o . Se e Na g o u lko v . I NS , 333 F . 3d 1012, 1018 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( pos s ibi l i tyof

f utur e pe r s e c ut i on t oo s pe c ul a t i ve ) . A c c or di ngl y , he rw i thhol di ng of rem o v al cl ai m fai l s.3 10- 71243

F i nal l y, subst ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s deni alof C A T re l i ef be c aus e P a di l l a - C a s t i l l o f a i l e d t o s how i ti s m or e l i ke l ytha n nots he w i l l be 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 n c e o f th e g o v e rn m e n t if

r e tu rn e dto M e x ic o . See San tos-L em us v. Mukasey , 54 2 F . 3d 73 8, 74 7-48 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.