Jorge Diaz-Martinez v. Loretta E. Lynch

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE ALBERTO DIAZ-MARTINEZ, No. 11-72339
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-789-427
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Alberto Diaz-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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, Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920
(9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Diaz-Martinez established
the government of El Salvador is unwilling or unable to control the street gangs he
fears. See id. at 920 (an applicant for asylum and withholding of removal bears the
burden of establishing that the government would be unwilling or unable to
prevent his persecution); see also Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th
Cir. 2005) (record does not compel a contrary conclusion where “reasonable minds
could differ”). Thus, Diaz-Martinez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Diaz-
Martinez did not establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by the
government of El Salvador or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-72339