Case Name: Rafael Lazaro Lopez ALMARAZ, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-01
Citations: 241 F. App'x 455
Docket Number: No. 06-70416
Parties: Rafael Lazaro Lopez ALMARAZ, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 241
Pages: 455–457

Head Matter:
Rafael Lazaro Lopez ALMARAZ, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70416.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2007.
Filed Oct. 1, 2007.
Michael T. Purcell, Esq., Portland, OR, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of. Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Amy E. Potter, Esq., USPO-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
This panel unanimously finds this case suit able for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rafael Lazaro Lopez Almaraz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming an Immigration Judge's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). We deny the petition.
The record supports the BIA's finding that it would be reasonable to expect Lopez Almaraz to relocate to Guatemala City because he lived there for 13 years without incident. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of withholding of removal. See id.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA's denial of CAT relief. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 435, 443 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.