N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SYLVIA PAOLA R OSALES VELIZ, AKA Sy lvia

R osa le s De Aquino, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-73551 Age n c y No. A095-789-046 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2015 ** B e fore : LEAVY, C ALLAHAN, a nd M . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s. Sy lvia Pa ola R osa le s Ve l iz , a

native and c itiz e n of Gua te m a la , pe titions for re vie w of a

B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism i ssing he r a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng he r a pplic at ion for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have 

# F IL ED MAY28 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, Ze haty ev . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006), a nd we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. The re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the finding tha

t R osa le s Ve l ize sta

blishe d e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s to e xc use he r untim e l y a sy lum a pplic at ion. Se e8 C .F.R . § 1208.4(a)(5); se ealso Toj-C ulpatan v . Holde r , 612 F.3d 1088, 1091-92 (9th C ir. 2010). W e re

je c t R osa le s Ve liz ’ s c o nte ntions tha t the a ge nc y ’ s ana ly sis wa s insuffic ie nt a

nd im prope r. Thus, wede ny

the pe tition for re vie w a s to he r a sy lum c la im . R osa le s Ve lizte stifie d tha t she and he r husba

nd we re the vic tim s of a c arja c king in Gua

te m a la an d she fe ars furthe r harm if re turne d. Substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the

a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t e v e n if R osa le s Ve liz e sta blishe d she is a m e m

b e r of a pa rtic ula r soc ia l group of wom e n in Gua te m a la , she did not e sta

blish pa st pe rse c ution or c le ar proba bility of future pe rse c ution on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground. Se eParussimov a v . Muk ase y , 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ [T] o de m onstra te tha t a prote c te d ground wa s ‘ at le a s t one c e ntra l re a s on’ for pe rse c ution, a n a pplic ant m

ust provetha

t suc h ground wa s a

c a use of the p e rse c utors’ a c ts.” ); Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe t itione r’ s “ de s ire to be fre e from ha ra ssm e nt by

c rim ina ls m otiva

te d by the ft or 1 2 - 7 3 5 5 1 2random

viole nc e by

ga ng m e m be rs be ars no ne xus to a prote c t e d ground” ). Thus, R osa le s Ve liz ’ s withholding of rem ova l c la im fa ils. Se eDinu v . Ashc roft , 372 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th C ir. 2004). Fina lly , substa

ntia l e v ide nc e a lso supports the a g e nc y ’ s de nia l of R osa le s Ve liz ’ s C AT c la im

be c a use she fa ile d to e sta

blish it is m

ore like ly tha n not she would betorture d if re turne d to Gua te m a la . Se eAlphonsus v. Holde r , 705 F.3d 1031, 1049-50 (9th C ir. 2013). W e re je c t R osa l e s Ve liz ’ s c onte ntion tha t the a ge nc y did not a

na ly z e he r c la im

suffic ie ntly . PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 3 5 5 1 3