Roberto Cardona Flores v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERTO ARNOLDO CARDONA No. 11-73479
FLORES, AKA Roberto Cardona, AKA
Roberto Flores, AKA Jorge Adriel Agency No. A095-017-711
Menchaca Ruffiar,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM*
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Roberto Arnoldo Cardona Flores, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
*
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).
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Cardona Flores
failed to establish he suffered past persecution or faces a clear probability of future
persecution on account of a protected ground based on the two incidents that
occurred to him in 2000. See Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th
Cir. 2013) (en banc) (stating standard that applicant alleging past persecution has
the burden of establishing his treatment rises to the level of persecution); Pagayon
v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1190-91 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (record did not
compel the conclusion it is more likely than not that petitioner would face
persecution where family member remained unharmed). Thus, we deny the
petition for review as to Cardona Flores’s withholding of removal claim.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Cardona Flores failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). We reject
2 11-73479
Cardona Flores’s contention that the BIA did not consider all the evidence. See
Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not
overcome presumption agency reviewed record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-73479