FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MUIRUM VELASQUEZ-PAGON, No. 07-74967
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-577-021
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Muirum Velasquez-Pagon, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum,
*
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).
NED/Research
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, Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 738-39 (9th Cir. 2009), and we
deny the petition for review.
The agency denied Velasquez-Pagon’s asylum application as time barred,
and Velasquez-Pagon does not challenge this finding.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Velasquez-Pagon
failed to establish that one central reason for the problems she experienced in
Honduras was her sexual orientation. See id. at 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real
ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an
asylum applicant’s persecution”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
determination that Velasquez-Pagon did not establish a clear probability of future
persecution because her voluntary return trip to Honduras undermined her claim.
See Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2008).
Velasquez-Pagon does not raise any arguments in her opening brief
regarding the agency’s denial of her CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94
F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-74967