FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEGUNDO ALBERTO PALMA- No. 08-71121
CARRILLO, a.k.a. Segundo Palma-
Carrillo, Agency No. A078-019-474
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM *
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Segundo Alberto Palma-Carrillo, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ affirmance of an immigration
judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
*
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).
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and review for
substantial evidence factual findings. Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177
(9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Palma-Carrillo established
extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum
application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088,
1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that, separately or taken together, an asylum
applicant’s inability to speak English, his two-months in an immigration detention
center, and the transfer of his case were not “extraordinary circumstances” that
would excuse his excusing his untimely filing).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Palma-Carrillo’s
withholding of removal claim because the unfulfilled threats he received from
unidentified individuals connected with the Sendero Luminoso do not compel the
conclusion that he was persecuted or that it is more likely than not that he will be
persecuted. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2005)
(finding no past persecution or well-founded fear of future persecution where
applicant “received only telephone or written threats, and never had a personal
confrontation with any of the people threatening him”).
2 08-71121
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of relief under
CAT because Palma-Carrillo failed to show it is more likely than not that he will
be tortured if returned to Peru. See Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1224 (9th
Cir. 2005) (explaining that “torture is more severe than persecution” and CAT
claims must satisfy a “more likely than not” burden of proof).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-71121