Juan Manuel Tincopa-Sanchez, a.k.a. Juan Sanchez-Tincopa 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN MANUEL TINCOPA-SANCHEZ,
a.k.a. Juan Sanchez-Tincopa,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70943
Agency No. A099-577-131
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Juan Manuel Tincopa-Sanchez, 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
FILED
MAR 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-70943 2
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992), and we deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of asylum because
Tincopa-Sanchez failed to establish the harm he suffered, or fears, from the
Shining Path is on account of an imputed political opinion. See id. at 481 n.1 (“[t]o
reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports that
conclusion, but compels it”) (emphasis in original); 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”); Cruz-
Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2000) (police officer threatened by
Shining Path guerrillas because they believed he was an informant did not establish
persecution on account of an imputed political opinion). Accordingly, we deny the
petition as to Tincopa-Sanchez’s asylum claim.
Because Tincopa-Sanchez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

09-70943 3
Finally, Tincopa-Sanchez failed to raise any substantive challenge to the
denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th
Cir. 1996) (issues not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed
waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --