FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 17 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIO CESAR SALINAS-ZAPATA, No. 10-71125
AKA Julio Cesar Salinas-Zepata,
Agency No. A094-822-012
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Julio Cesar Salinas-Zapata, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 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).
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Salinas-Zapata established
extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). The record does not support Salinas-Zapata’s contention
that the IJ did not consider his claim that depression excused his untimely filing.
Thus, we deny the petition as to his asylum claim.
Salinas-Zapata fears he will be an outcast in Peruvian society, and a target
for crime and discrimination based on his appearance, limited Spanish-language
ability, and American acculturation. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding
that Salinas-Zapata failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will face
persecution in Peru. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)
(possibility of future persecution too speculative). Thus, we deny the petition as to
his withholding of removal claim.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Salinas-Zapata’s
CAT claim because he failed to show that it is more likely than not that he would
2 10-71125
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Peru. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, we do not consider the new evidence in Salinas-Zapata’s opening
brief regarding cancellation of removal because our review is limited to the
administrative record underlying the agency’s decision. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d
955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996). Salinas-Zapata does not challenge the findings the IJ
made in denying cancellation of removal. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). We lack jurisdiction to review any challenge
Salinas-Zapata makes to the BIA’s December 7, 2010, order, because Salinas-
Zapata did not file a petition for review of that order. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S.
386, 405 (1995).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 10-71125