FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER DELEON-PEREZ, No. 11-72963
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-698-107
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Walter DeLeon-Perez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). We
review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance. Peng v.
Holder, 673 F.3d 1248, 1253 (9th Cir. 2012). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that DeLeon-Perez failed
to file his asylum application within a reasonable period of time after any changed
or extraordinary circumstance. See Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1049-50
(9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (petitioner did not file within a reasonable period after
losing his nonimmigrant status); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Accordingly,
DeLeon-Perez’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that DeLeon-Perez did
not suffer past persecution in Guatemala when he ran away from military
checkpoints to avoid recruitment into the military. See Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224
F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 2000) (attempts by the military or guerrillas to forcibly
recruit the petitioner did not constitute persecution). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s finding that DeLeon-Perez failed to establish a clear
probability of future persecution based on his fear that he will be extorted by gangs
or harmed for refusing recruitment into a gang. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d
849, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2009); Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016 (“An alien’s desire to be free
2 11-72963
from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang
members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). DeLeon-Perez also failed to
establish a future fear based on harm to his brother. See Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d
1014, 1029 (9th Cir. 2004) (a petitioner may have a well-founded future fear when
violence against a family member is “closely tied to the petitioner”) (internal
quotation omitted). Further, the record does not compel the conclusion that
DeLeon-Perez has a clear probability of persecution based on an imputed anti-
government political opinion for his failure to serve in the military. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1188 (9th Cir. 2006) (no evidence the petitioner would
be singled out for failing to serve in the military). Accordingly, DeLeon-Perez’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
DeLeon-Perez failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
3 11-72963
Finally, the IJ did not abuse its discretion in denying DeLeon-Perez’s motion
for a continuance. See Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 2008)
(discussing factors to consider in evaluating the denial of a motion for a
continuance).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4 11-72963