Case Name: Ricardo VELA-LUQUE, a.k.a. Ricardo Vela Luque, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-13
Citations: 475 F. App'x 231
Docket Number: No. 10-72032
Parties: Ricardo VELA-LUQUE, a.k.a. Ricardo Vela Luque, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 231–232

Head Matter:
Ricardo VELA-LUQUE, a.k.a. Ricardo Vela Luque, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-72032.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
Filed Aug. 13, 2012.
Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Federal Immigration Counselors, Inc., APC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Stefanie N. Hennes, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, 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
Ricardo Vela-Luque, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
Contrary to Vela-Luque's contentions, substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of his CAT claim because Vela-Luque did not establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Peruvian government. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir.2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.