Carlos Colocho v. Loretta E. Lynch , 610 F. App'x 645 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS HUMBERTO COLOCHO, No. 13-72372
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-228-625
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Humberto Colocho, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and
*
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).
review de novo constitutional claims. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011-12
(9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Colocho’s application
for asylum, where the record does not compel the conclusion that Colocho
established past persecution, see Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th
Cir. 2009) (mistreatment, including two beatings, did not compel finding of past
persecution), or an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution, see Halim v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir. 2009) (fear of future persecution “must be
both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable” (citation and quotation
marks omitted)).
Because Colocho failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum, it
follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of relief under the
Convention Against Torture, where Colocho failed to show it is more likely than
not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of
El Salvador if returned to El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066,
1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
2 13-72372
The record does not support Colocho’s contention that the BIA failed to
provide a reasoned explanation for its decision. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[The BIA] does not have to write an exegesis on
every contention.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of
Colocho’s application for special rule cancellation of removal under the
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (“NACARA”),
and Colocho fails to present colorable constitutional claims or questions of law that
would invoke our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); NACARA, Pub.
L. No. 105-100 § 203(b), 111 Stat. 2160 (1997). We do not reach Colocho’s
contentions regarding statutory eligibility for NACARA relief because the agency
did not deny relief on that ground.
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Colocho’s contention that the agency
erred in its discretionary denial of his application for voluntary departure, where he
presents no question of law that would invoke our jurisdiction. See
Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1176-77 (9th Cir. 2013) (this court
retains jurisdiction to review questions of law or constitutional challenges to
denials of voluntary departure, but lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary
denials of such relief).
3 13-72372
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
4 13-72372