FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENIS MARTIN CASTRO-MARTINEZ, No. 10-71366
a.k.a. Denis Martin Castro,
Agency No. A094-295-359
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012 **
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Denis Martin Castro-Martinez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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).
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, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny
the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Castro-Martinez fails to raise any challenge to the
agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum application was time-barred.
See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a petitioner waives an
issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief). Accordingly, his asylum claim
fails.
Castro-Martinez testified to problems family members had with the
Sandinistas twenty-five years previously. The agency found that Castro-Martinez
failed to establish past persecution. The record does not compel a contrary
conclusion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (to reverse
the agency’s finding “we must find that the evidence not only supports that
conclusion, but compels it”). Because Castro-Martinez did not establish past
persecution, he is not entitled to a presumption of future persecution by the
Sandinistas. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). Further,
substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Castro-Martinez did not
2 10-71366
establish a clear probability of future persecution. See id. (finding speculative
possibilities insufficient to be credited as a basis for fear of future persecution).
Finally, the record does not compel the conclusion that Castro-Martinez
more likely than not will be tortured by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, the
government if he returns to Nicaragua. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-71366