N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JULIO C ESAR

SALINAS-ZAPATA, AKA Julio C e sa

r Sa lina s-Ze pata , Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 10-71125 Age n c y No. A094-822-012 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 arc h 10, 2015 ** B e fore : FARR IS, W ARDLAW , a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Julio C e sa

r Sa lina s-Za

pata , a native and c itiz e n of Pe ru, pe titions pro se 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 (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic at ion for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ), and 

# FIL ED MAR 17 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l . Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 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. Ze h a ty e v . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dism i ss in pa

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

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t Sa lina s-Za

pata e sta blishe d e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s to e xc use his untim e l y a sy lum a pplic a tion. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.4(a)(5). The re c ord doe s not support Salina s-Za pata ’ s c onte ntion that the IJ did not c onside r his c la im that de pre s sion e xc use d his untime ly filing. Thus, we de ny the pe tition a s to his a s y lum c la im . Sa lina s-Za

pata fe ars he will be an

outc a s t in Pe ruvia

n soc ie ty , a

nd a ta rge t for c rim e and disc rim ination ba se d on his a ppe a ra nc e , lim ite d Spa

nish-la ngua ge a bility , a nd Am e ric a

n a c c ultura

tion. Substa

n tia l e vide nc e supports the IJ’ s finding that Sa lina s-Za

pata fa ile d to e sta

blish it is m

ore like ly tha n not tha t he will fa c e pe rse c ution in Pe ru. Se eN agoulk o v . IN S , 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th C ir. 2003) (possibility

of future pe rse c ut ion too spe c ulative ). Thus, we de ny the pe tition a s to his withholding of re

m o va l c la im . Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of Sa l ina s-Za pata ’ s C AT c la i m

be c a use he fa ile d to show tha

t it is m o re like ly

tha n not tha t he would

2 1 0 - 7 1 1 2 5be torture d by or with thec onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of the gove rnm e nt if re turne d to Pe ru. Se e Silay a v . Muk

ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2008). Fina lly , we do not c onside r the ne w e vide nc e in Sa lina s-Za pata ’ s ope ning brie f re g arding c anc e l l a tion of re m ova l be c a use our re vie w is limite d to the a dm inistra

tive re c ord unde rly ing the a ge nc y ’ s de c ision. Se e Fishe r v . IN S , 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th C ir. 1996). Sa lina s-Za pata doe s not c ha lle nge the findings the IJ m a de in de ny ing c anc e lla tion of re m ova l. Se e Martine z-Se r rano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th C ir. 1996). W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w a ny c ha lle nge Sa lina s-Za

pata m ake s to the B IA’ s De c e m b e r 7, 2010, orde r, be c a

u se Sa lina sZa pata did not file

a pe tition for re vie w of tha t orde r. Se e Stone

v . IN S , 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

3 1 0 - 7 1 1 2 5