Jose Castillo-Rodas v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ISABEL CASTILLO-RODAS, No. 14-73072 Petitioner, Agency No. A098-762-773 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Jose Isabel Castillo-Rodas, 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 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 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Castillo-Rodas failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be persecuted if returned to El Salvador. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution in Ukraine too speculative). Contrary to Castillo-Rodas’s contentions, the BIA did not err in declining to reach his arguments as to nexus or relocation. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, Castillo-Rodas’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Castillo-Rodas failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (evidence did not compel conclusion that petitioner established the state action necessary for CAT relief). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-73072 14-73072 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Jose Castillo-Rodas v. Jefferson Sessions 23 March 2018 Agency Unpublished 7a9b601bded46349864b7df5ed198f36150de0f9

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals