JUAN TINCOPA-SANCHEZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 09-70943 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAR 06 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN MANUEL TINCOPA-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Juan Sanchez-Tincopa, No. 09-70943 Agency No. A099-577-131 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. 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 * 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). 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 ); CruzNavarro 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 09-70943 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 09-70943

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.