Jose Baires v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 587 F. App'x 426 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 12 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MIGUEL BAIRES, No. 13-73310
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-193-694
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 5, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jose Miguel Baires, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070
(9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Baires does not claim past persecution. Substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s determination that Baires failed to establish a fear of future persecution on
account of a protected ground. See Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1280-81 (9th
Cir. 1998) (criminal acts bore no nexus to a protected ground); see also
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”). We reject Baires’s contentions that the IJ failed to
appropriately consider his evidence and claim. We also reject Baires’s contention
that the BIA erroneously treated his claim as arising in Guatemala because, despite
one reference to Guatemala, the BIA’s decision otherwise indicates it considered
his claimed fear of harm in El Salvador by criminal elements in El Salvador. Thus,
Baires’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Molina-Morales v.
INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Baires’s CAT claim
because he did not establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured
by the government of El Salvador or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya,
2 13-73310
524 F.3d at 1073. We reject Baires’s contentions that the IJ and BIA failed to
consider his record evidence, including his testimony, and his contention that the
BIA did not adequately explain its reasoning. Further, we reject Baires’s
contentions that the BIA violated due process by analyzing his CAT claim without
the benefit of a country report. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Baires’s due process and equal
protection challenges because he failed to raise these claims to the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-73310