Pascual Hernandez Gaspar v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 591 F. App'x 552 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PASCUAL HERNANDEZ GASPAR, No. 12-72353
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-793-930
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Pascual Hernandez Gaspar, 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,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). 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), and we deny the petition for review.
Hernandez Gaspar contends gang members threatened and harmed him on
account of his religion. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that
Hernandez Gaspar failed to establish he suffered past persecution or has a well-
founded fear of future persecution upon return to Guatemala on account of a
protected 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”). Accordingly, in the absence of a nexus to
a protected ground, Hernandez Gaspar’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Hernandez Gaspar 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
Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, we reject Hernandez Gaspar’s contentions that the BIA’s analysis
was inadequate and incomplete. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th
Cir. 2010) (the BIA “does not have to write an exegesis on every contention”); see
2 12-72353
also Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner
must overcome the presumption that the agency has considered all the evidence).
This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking prosecutorial
discretion or deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security. See
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471,
483-85 (1999) (stating that prosecutorial discretion by the agency can be granted at
any stage, including after the conclusion of judicial review).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-72353