NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 2 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
MIGUEL ANGEL CAB PEREZ; No. 08-72592
CLAUDIA COLON BARRIOS,
Agency Nos. A097-854-221
Petitioners, A097-854-222
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 1, 2011 **
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Angel Cab Perez and Claudia Colon Barrios, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
*
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).
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85
(9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that their
application for asylum was untimely. Accordingly, their asylum claim fails.
Petitioners do not contend that they suffered past persecution. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioners failed to establish they have
a clear probability of future harm based on their evangelical Christian religion
because the record shows that problems for evangelical Christians are localized to
particular areas. See Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2008).
We decline to consider the documents attached to petitioners’ opening brief
because they are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d
955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because petitioners failed to establish that it is more likely than not they will be
tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-72592