Carlos Roberto Palacios- Guzman 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).
PR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ROBERTO PALACIOS-
GUZMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74136
Agency No. A097-907-476
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Roberto Palacios-Guzman, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
FILED
FEB 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

PR/Research 07-74136 2
asylum, 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, Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1055-56 (9th
Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Palacios-Guzman
demonstrated changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to his asylum
claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Palacios-Guzman
did not establish past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution,
because he failed to demonstrate the government was unwilling or unable to
protect him from the group that kidnapped him. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399
F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d
1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (failure to report non-governmental persecution due to
belief that police would do nothing did not establish that government was
unwilling or unable to control persecutors). Accordingly, Palacios-Guzman’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Palacios-Guzman’s
CAT claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be

-- 2 of 3 --

PR/Research 07-74136 3
tortured if returned to El Salvador. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49
(9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --