Roberto Alvarado-Aliman v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 591 F. App'x 609 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERTO ALVARADO-ALIMAN, No. 10-70273
AKA Roberto Alvarado-Aleman,
Agency No. A088-889-294
Petitioner,
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.
Roberto Alvarado-Aliman, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 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
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.
2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Alvarado-Aliman failed
to establish a nexus between the harm he suffered and fears and a protected
ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (petitioner must
provide some evidence of motive, direct or circumstantial). In light of our
conclusion, we need not reach Alvarado-Aliman’s challenge to the BIA’s finding
regarding the cognizability of his proposed social group. Thus, Alvarado-Aliman’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Alvarado-
Aliman failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured in
Honduras by or with the consent or acquiescence of a government official. See
Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 748 (9th Cir. 2008), overruled on other
grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en
banc). Thus, Alvarado-Aliman’s CAT claim fails.
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,
2 10-70273
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 10-70273