Oscar Israel Nogales-Perez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
OSCAR ISRAEL NOGALES-PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 10-72202
10-73820
Agency No. A098-267-325
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Israel Nogales-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the 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
FILED
DEC 28 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 10-72202 / 10-73820
(“CAT”) (No. 10-72202), and of the BIA’s order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings (No. 10-73820). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review de novo due process claims, Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092,
1095 (9th Cir. 2000), we review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 2000), and we
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Cano-Merida v.
INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petitions for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Nogales-Perez established
changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the delay in filing his asylum
application beyond the one-year deadline. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5). We
reject Nogales-Perez’s contention that the BIA’s untimeliness finding violates the
statute and due process. See Larita-Martinez, 220 F.3d at 1095-96 (requiring error
to prevail on a due process claim). Accordingly, Nogales-Perez’s asylum claim
fails.
Nogales-Perez contends he was threatened on account of an imputed
political opinion and/or his membership in a particular social group after
intercepting $600,000 of likely drug money in his capacity as an auxiliary police
officer at the Mexico City airport. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial
of Nogales-Perez’s withholding of removal claim because he failed to demonstrate

-- 2 of 3 --

3 10-72202 / 10-73820
he was or will be harmed on account of a protected ground. See Cruz-Navarro,
232 F.3d at 1030 (rejecting imputed political opinion claim where petitioner failed
to link his persecution to anything other than his status as a police officer); see also
Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that former
military officer was targeted because of his role in a particular arrest, rather than on
account of his membership in a particular social group of former officers). In the
absence of a nexus to a protected ground, Nogales-Perez’s withholding of removal
claim fails. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Nogales-Perez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured
if returned to Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011)
(claim of possible torture speculative). We reject Nogales-Perez’s contention that
the BIA inadequately and improperly reviewed his CAT claim.
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Nogales-Perez’s
motion to reopen, because he did not establish that his proffered evidence was
material and would likely change the result in the case. See Shin v. Mukasey, 547
F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --