N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ILTON A M A SS-ALVAR ADO, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-73600 Age n c y No. A200-885-293 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

Nove m b e r 18, 2015 ** B e fore : TASHIM A , OW ENS, a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. M ilton A M a ss-Alva

ra do, a nat ive and c i tiz e n of Hondura s, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture



# FIL ED N OV 25 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).(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, Gu v . Gonzale s , 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th C ir. 2006), a

nd we de ny the pe tition for re v i e w. M a ss-Alva

ra do’ s ope ning brie f re fe rs to e ligibility for a sy lum , but hedoe s not c ha lle nge the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha t his a sy lum

a pplic ation wa s untim e ly , a nd that he fa ile d to e s ta

blish c ha n g e d or e xtra o rdina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s to e xc use the de la y . Se e Martine

z-Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th C ir. 1996) (“ Issue s ra ise d in a

brie f that a

re not supporte d by

argum e nt a

re de e m e d

a ba ndone d.” ). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t the 2001 inc ide nt did not riseto thele ve l of pe rse c ution. Se eHox ha v . Ashc roft , 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th C ir. 2003). Substa ntia l e vide nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t M a s s-Alva

ra do fa i l e d to e sta

blish it is m

ore like ly tha n not hewill bepe rse c ute d on a c c o unt of his politic a l opinion. Se eLata v . IN S, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th C ir. 2000) (fe ar unde rm i ne d by c ontinue d pre se nc e of a

p plic ant without furthe

r harm ); N agoulk o v . IN S , 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th C i r. 2003) (possibility of future pe rse c ution “too spe c ulative ” ). Thus, M a ss-Alva ra do’ s withholding of re

m ova l c la im fa ils. Furthe r, substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s de nia l of M a ss-Alva ra do’ s C AT c la i m

be c a use he fa ile d to e sta

b lish it is m

ore like ly tha n not he would be

1 3 - 7 3 6 0 0 2torture d by

or with thec onse nt or a c q uie s c e n c e of the gove rnm e nt if re turne d to Hondura s. Se eAlphonsus v. Holde r , 705 F.3d 1031, 1049-50 (9th C ir. 2013). W e re je c t his c onte ntions tha

t the B IA did not suffic ie ntly c onside r his C AT c l a im

and did not e xpla in its re a sons for de ny ing it. Se e N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C i r. 2010). In re a c hing the se c onc lusions, wedo not c onside r the 2013 c ountry c onditions re fe re nc e d in M a ss-Alva ra do’ s ope ning brie f. Se eFishe r v . IN S , 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th C ir. 1996) (e n ba nc ) (the c ourt’ s re vie w is limite d to the a dm inistra

tive re c ord). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 3 - 7 3 6 0 0 3