OSCAR ARMANDO RIVERA-OLIVA, AKA Oscar Oliva, AKA Oscar Rivera 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).
The Honorable Robert J. Timlin, Senior District Judge for the U.S.***
District Court for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR ARMANDO RIVERA-OLIVA,
AKA Oscar Oliva, AKA Oscar Rivera,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71162
Agency No. A094-314-274
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 12, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and TIMLIN, Senior District
Judge.***
FILED
JUN 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Oscar Armando Rivera-Oliva (Rivera-Oliva) petitions for review of the
decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, cancellation of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture Act (CAT).
1. The BIA correctly determined that Rivera-Oliva’s application for
asylum was time-barred. Rivera-Oliva failed to establish changed or extraordinary
circumstances to excuse his untimely filing. See Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d
1172, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2008) (recognizing an exception to the asylum filing
deadline when the petitioner shows extraordinary circumstances directly related to
the delay).
2. Although Rivera-Oliva’s asylum was time-barred, he may
nevertheless apply for withholding of removal. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d
1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010). A person must establish a clear probability of
persecution to qualify for withholding of removal. See id. A personal vendetta or
revenge does not satisfy this requirement. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d
1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001). This record does not compel the conclusion that
Rivera-Oliva would more probably than not be persecuted if he returned to El

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Salvador. See Kaiser v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 653, 661 (9th Cir. 2004) (articulating
standard).
3. Rivera-Oliva failed to raise before the BIA the argument that he was a
member of a particular social group. Therefore, this argument is unexhausted. See
Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1188 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that we only
review issues after a petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies). In any
event, Rivera-Oliva failed to establish that he was a member of a particular social
group “united by a voluntary association.” Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d
1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc).
4. To qualify for CAT relief, a petitioner must show that it is more likely
than not that he would be tortured with the acquiescence of the government if
removed to the country of origin. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1194-95
(9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that
Rivera-Oliva was not entitled to CAT protection, because he failed to present
evidence of acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See id. at 1193-95.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
5. To qualify for cancellation of removal a petitioner must establish good
moral character for the requisite period. See Camacho-Cruz v. Holder, 621 F.3d
941, 942 (9th Cir. 2010). The BIA affirmed the ruling by the immigration judge
that Rivera-Oliva did not meet the good moral character requirement because he
was incarcerated for more than 180 days. See also Arreguin-Moreno v. Mukasey,
511 F.3d 1229, 1233 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that a petitioner cannot meet the
good moral character requirement if she served 180 days or more in a penal
institution). The record supports the agency’s determination.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --