NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 5 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HUGO ERNESTO CASTILLO-MANCIA, No. 16-72753 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-808-606 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 6, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: MURGUIA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and GUIROLA,*** District Judge. Hugo Ernesto Castillo-Mancia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing an appeal * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Louis Guirola, Jr., United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, sitting by designation. from the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny Castillo-Mancia’s petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the determinations of the IJ and BIA that Castillo-Mancia failed to establish that any harm he experienced in El Salvador was on account of a protected ground. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014). In addition, substantial evidence supports the finding that Castillo- Mancia failed to demonstrate that he faces future harm in El Salvador. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). The application for asylum and withholding of removal was therefore appropriately denied. 2. Castillo-Mancia has not demonstrated that he would more likely than not suffer torture upon return to El Salvador. The agency’s decision that Castillo- Mancia failed to show that he is entitled to CAT protection is therefore also supported by substantial evidence. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-72753 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Hugo Castillo-Mancia v. William Barr 5 December 2019 Agency Unpublished 33916e5c72e6e302b64aba710ba2a94a01e14dd8
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals