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 A RN O LD A N D RA D E- Q U I RO Z; D EY SI M AREL LY AN DRAD E- QU I ROZ, 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. 10- 71453 A ge nc yN os . A 098- 263- 811

A 098- 591- 510 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 Jul y12, 2011 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , A L A R C Ó N , an dL E A V Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A rnol d A ndr a de - Q ui r oz a nd D e y s i M ar e l l yA ndr a de - Q ui r oz , na t i ve s a nd ci t i zen s o f H o n du ras, p et i t i o n fo r rev i ew o f th e B o ardo f Im m i g rat i o n A p p eal s’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rdi s m i s s i ng the i rappe 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



# FI LED JU L 19 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2 10- 71453

denyi ng thei r app l i cat i on for a sy l um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , and p rot ec t i on un der th e Co n v e n t i o n A g a i n s tTo rtu r e ( “ CA T” ) . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e rb y8 U . S. C. § 1 2 5 2 . We r e v i e w d e n o v o q u e s t i o n s o f l aw, C er ez o v. Mukasey , 512 F . 3d 1163, 1 1 6 6 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ), ex ce p t t o th e e x ten t th at d ef er en ce is o w ed to th e B IA ’s d e te rm in a tio n o f

th e g o v e rn in g s ta tu te s a n dr e g u la tio n s , S im e o n o vv . A s h c r o ft , 371 F .3 d5 3 2 , 5 3 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e r e v ie w f o rs ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e f a c tu a l f in d in g s . Zehat ye v. G on zales , 453 F . 3d 1182, 1184- 85 ( 9th C i r . 2006) . W e de nythe p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . P e t i t i one r s ’ due pr oc e s s c ont e nt i on r e gar di ng the B I A ’ s s tr e a m l i ne d de c i s i on i s fo recl o sedb y Fa lc o n Ca rr ic h e v . A s h c r o ft, 350 F . 3d 845, 851 ( 9th C i r . 2003) (B IA ’ s s um m ary a ff

i rm ance procedure does not vi ol at e due process ). W e r e j e c tpe t i t i one r s ’ c l a i m tha tthe ya r e e l i gi bl e f ora s y l um a nd w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l b a s e do n th e ira n ti- g an g p o litic a l o p in io n s o rm e m b e r s h ip in ap a rtic u lars o c ia l g r o up . See B arri os v. H older , 58 1 F . 3d 84 9, 85 4– 55 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( re j ec t i ng as a part i cul arsoci algrou p “ youn g m al es i n G uat em al a w ho ar e targ eted fo r g an g re cru itm en t b u t ref u se b ec au se th ey d isag re e w ith th e g an g ’s c r im in a l a c tiv itie s ” ) ; se e San tos-L em us v. Mukasey , 54 2 F . 3d 73 8, 74 5– 46 (9th C i r. 2008) ( r e j e c t i ng a s apa rt i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup “ y oung m e n i n E l S a l va dorr e s i s t i ng3 10- 71453

gang vi ol ence , ” and ho l di ng thatgeneralaver si on t o g angs i s nota pol i t i ca l o p in io n ) . A c c o r d in g ly , 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 f

a il. Se e B arr i os , 5 8 1 F .3 da t 8 5 6 . F i n al l y, sub st an t i al ev i d en ce al so sup p o rt s th e ag en cy’ s d en i al o f p et i t i o n ers’ C A T cl ai m because they f ai l ed t o d em on strat e i ti s m ore l i kel y than n otthatthey w ill b e to rtu r e dif

th e yr e tu rn to H o n du r a s . See Sa n to s– L em u s, 542 F . 3d a t748. PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D EN I ED .