NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN JOSE HUARACA-MARTIN, No. 16-70636
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-659-425
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Juan Jose Huaraca-Martin, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Huaraca-Martin established
changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §
1208.4(a)(4); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010).
The agency did not err in its analysis of whether Huaraca-Martin demonstrated
changed or extraordinary circumstances. See Carrillo-Gonzalez v. INS, 353 F.3d
1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2003) (attorney’s arguments are not evidence).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Huaraca-Martin
did not establish past persecution from the Shining Path. See Nahrvani, 399 F.3d
at 1154 (record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner’s past harm
constituted persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
conclusion that Huaraca-Martin failed to establish it is more likely than not he will
be persecuted if returned to Peru. See Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th
Cir. 2004) (record did not demonstrate that petitioner had an objectively reasonable
fear of future persecution). Thus, Huaraca-Martin’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
2 16-70636
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Huaraca-Martin failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be
tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Peru. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68
(9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-70636