Court Opinion

ID: 806527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-08-13 19:52:17+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:20.507990
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            AUG 13 2012

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICARDO VELA-LUQUE, a.k.a. Ricardo               No. 10-72032
Vela Luque,
                                                 Agency No. A094-811-095
               Petitioner,

  v.                                             MEMORANDUM *

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted August 8, 2012 **

Before:        ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

       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

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.

                                          2                                    10-72032