William Rivera v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM RIVERA, No. 08-73339
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-052-064
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
William Rivera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief 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 factual
findings, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992), and de novo due
process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Rivera failed to
demonstrate he suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future
persecution on account of a protected ground. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483.
Because Rivera failed to meet the lower burden 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 CAT relief because
Rivera has not established that any torture he may suffer would be by or with the
acquiescence of the Salvadoran government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
We reject Rivera’s due process claim because he has not shown how he has
been prejudiced by any error. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2006) (petitioner must show error and prejudice to establish a due process
violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-73339