Jorge Luis Alvarez-Adalguiza v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
KAD/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE LUIS ALVAREZ-ADALGUIZA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72790
Agency No. A073-854-628
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Luis Alvarez-Adalguiza, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the
FILED
JAN 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KAD/Research 07-72790 2
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, Husyev v. Mukasey,
528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and legal questions and due process claims de
novo, Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861-62 (9th Cir. 2003); Ngongo v.
Ashcroft, 397 F.3d 821, 823 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief based on its
findings that Alvarez-Adalguiza was never physically harmed and he did not
establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or
acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d
1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003).
We reject Alvarez-Adalguiza’s contention that transcript provided by the
agency violated Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 17, and that his case should
be remanded to allow him to testify again. Although the transcript contains the
word “indiscernible” in several places, Alvarez-Adalguiza does not identify
specific inaccuracies in the transcript indicating the agency misunderstood his
claim. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2004). Furthermore,
we find no errors amounting to a due process violation. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to establish a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --