
    Aristides Soto MANSILLA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-74272
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted March 15, 2016 San Francisco, California
    Submission Withdrawn and Deferred April 22, 2016
    Resubmitted November 14, 2016
    November 14, 2016
    Jose A. Bracamonte, LAW OFFICES OF JOSE A. BRACAMONTE, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Jennifer R. Khouri, Attorney, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, Jennifer Parker Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent,
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges,
   MEMORANDUM

Aristides Soto Mansilla (“Soto”) petitions for review ofan order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his application for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition.

Relief under NACARA is unavailable to any applicant who has “incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(i); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(a). Soto told an immigration officer that as a sergeant in the Guatemalan military, he informed on suspected guerillas, knowing that they would likely be tortured. After guerillas were identified, the military would send a special G-2 intelligence team, who would take the suspected guerillas to the base to be investigated and tortured. He identified at least some of the suspected guerillas because they “had fliers.” This evidence indicates that Soto was both personally involved in and purposefully assisted persecution on account of political opinion, Miranda Alvarado v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 915, 927 (9th Cir. 2006), shifting the burden to him to prove that he was not a persecutor, see 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d). Soto failed to carry that burden. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Soto assisted in persecution and was ineligible for NACARA special rule cancellation of removal.

DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     