Case Name: Irwing Misael VILLAZANA TRUJILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-20
Citations: 539 F. App'x 708
Docket Number: No. 12-71395
Parties: Irwing Misael VILLAZANA TRUJILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 539
Pages: 708–709

Head Matter:
Irwing Misael VILLAZANA TRUJILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-71395.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 1, 2013.
Filed Aug. 20, 2013.
Zulu Ali, Zulu Abdullah Ali, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Todd J. Cochran, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Irwing Misael Villazana Trujillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's decision that there is an absence of changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of Petitioner's asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA's finding that there is no nexus between Petitioner's fear of future harm and a protected ground. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir.2010); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.2010).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief because Petitioner failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if he returns to Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.