N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R IGOB ER TO ORL ANDO LOPEZ, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-72285 Age n c y No. A077-067-740 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 14, 2013 ** B e fore : LEAVY, THOM AS, and M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . R igobe rto Orla

ndo Lope z , a

native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions pro se for re vie w 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 ation for a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a n d prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against



# FIL ED MAY17 2013 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Torture (“ C AT” ). 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, W ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th C ir. 2009), a n d re vie w for an a

buse of disc re tion the de nia l of a m otion to re m and, Mov

sisian v . Ashc roft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th C ir. 2005). W e dism i ss in pa

rt a nd de ny in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w . W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the IJ’ s finding tha t Lope z ’ s a sy lum a pplic ation wa s untim e ly . Se e Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004) (no jurisdic tion to re vie wc la im s not e xha uste d be fore the B IA). Lope z fe ars ha

rm ba se d on m istre at

m e nt he suffe re d during thee a rly 1980’ s at the ha nds of Sa lva d oria

n a uthoritie s who suspe c te d he wa s a gue rilla . Eve n if Lope z wa s c re dible , substa ntia l e vide n c e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of withholding of rem o v a l now tha t the c ivil wa

r is ove r an d the gue rilla s ha ve disba nde d. Se e K

umar v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 931, 934 (9th C ir. 2000) (pre sum ption of future pe rse c ut ion wa s re butte d by c ha nge d c ountry c onditions); Sow e v . Muk ase y , 538 F.3d 1281, 1288 (9th C ir. 2008) (de ny ing withholding of re m ova l whe re c ha nge d c ountry

c onditions re

butte d pre s um

p tion of futurepe rse c ution). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of C AT prote c tion be c a use Lope z fa i le d to de m onstra t e it is m ore like l y tha

n not he will betorture d if re turne d to El Sa lva dor. S e e Sow e , 538 F.3d at 1288-89 (e v ide nc e of c ha nge d 1 1 - 7 2 2 8 5 2c ountry

c onditions de fe ate d C A T c la im ). W e re je c t Lope z ’ s c onte nt ion tha

t the a ge nc y disre ga

rde d his C A T c la im . Fina lly , the B IA c onstrue d Lope z ’ s subm i ssion of a psy c h o logic a l re p ort a s a m otion to re m a

nd. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing them otion be c a use Lope z fa i le d to show the re port wa s una

va ila ble and c ould not ha

ve be e n disc ove re d or pre se nte d at his he aring, a nd fa ile d to e s ta

blish it would like ly c ha nge the outc om e of his proc e e dings. Se e Goe l v . Gonzale s , 490 F.3d 735, 738- 39 (9th C ir. 2007) (no a

b use of disc re tion whe re e v ide nc e c ould ha ve be e n pre s e nte d at prior he aring a nd did not e s ta

blish prima fa c ie e ligibility for re lie f). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDISM ISSE D in par t; DE NIE D in par t.

1 1 - 7 2 2 8 5 3