Muirum Velasquez-Pagon 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).
NED/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MUIRUM VELASQUEZ-PAGON,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74967
Agency No. A099-577-021
MEMORANDUM*
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,
FILED
JUL 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74967 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, 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 of 2 --