Virginia Cerro De Gonzal Ojeda; Jair Miguel Ojeda v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIRGINIA CERRO DE GONZAL
OJEDA; JAIR MIGUEL OJEDA,
Petitioners,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-74100
Agency Nos. A098-263-503
A094-371-065
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Virginia Cerro De Gonzal Ojeda and Jair Miguel Ojeda, natives and citizens
of Peru, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
SEP 03 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th
Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s determination that their untimely
asylum applications were not excused by changed or extraordinary circumstances,
nor do they challenge the agency’s denial of their CAT claims. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, we deny the petition
as to their asylum and CAT claims.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish the government was or would be unable or unwilling to control
the individuals they fear. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.
2005) (record did not compel finding petitioner faced persecution by forces the
government was unwilling or unable to control). Thus, we deny the petition as to
their withholding of removal claims.
We reject petitioners’ request for remand, set forth in their Response to
Court Order.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-74100

-- 2 of 2 --