Edgar Gramajo-Lopez v. Loretta E. Lynch , 633 F. App'x 442 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 07 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDGAR ANIBAL GRAMAJO-LOPEZ, No. 14-70749
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-757-207
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Edgar Anibal Gramajo-Lopez’s motion to refer this case to mediation and
his request to hold this case in abeyance are denied.
Gramajo-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
*
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 cases is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection 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.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Gramajo-Lopez established
an exception to the asylum filing deadline to excuse his untimely application. See
8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088,
1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, we deny the petition as to his asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gramajo-
Lopez failed to establish past persecution in Guatemala on account of a protected
ground, including an actual or imputed political opinion, or membership in a
particular social group. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th
Cir. 2009) (under the REAL ID Act, “to demonstrate that a protected ground was
‘at least one central reason’ for persecution, an applicant must prove that such
ground was a cause of the persecutors’ acts”). Substantial evidence also supports
the agency’s determination that Gramajo-Lopez failed to establish it is more likely
than not he would be targeted for harm if returned to Guatemala. See Nagoulko v.
2 14-70749
INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution too
speculative). Thus, Gramajo-Lopez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Gramajo-
Lopez’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan
government. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. We reject Gramajo-Lopez’s contention
that the agency’s analysis was insufficient. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-70749