FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TOMAS PELICO-HERNANDEZ, No. 10-71080
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-915-388
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Tomas Pelico-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings and we review de novo the agency’s legal
determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We
deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Pelico-Hernandez
established extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely application for
asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to
Pelico-Hernandez’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Pelico-Hernandez
failed to establish the guerillas’ actions in Guatemala were motivated by either his
actual or imputed political opinion, or by his indigenous ethnicity. See INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84 (1992); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d
734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground
represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). With
respect to his fear of future harm, the BIA found that Pelico-Hernandez failed to
establish criminal gangs would persecute him on account of a protected ground.
Pelico-Hernandez does not challenge this finding. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94
F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed
waived). Accordingly, Pelico-Hernandez’s withholding claim fails.
2 10-71080
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection
because Pelico-Hernandez failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiesce of a public official in Guatemala.
See Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-71080