22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T535,MEMORANDUM Estuardo Antonio Perez-AIdana, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Perez-AIdana established extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely-filed asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4 (a)(5). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Perez-Aldana’s asylum claim. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Perez-AIdana failed to establish past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution on account of an enumerated ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Thus, Perez-Aldana’s withholding of removal claim fails. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T567,

MEMORANDUM

Estuardo Antonio Perez-AIdana, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Perez-AIdana established extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely-filed asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4 (a)(5). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Perez-Aldana’s asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Perez-AIdana failed to establish past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution on account of an enumerated ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Thus, Perez-Aldana’s withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.