NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 15 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE RAFAEL PINEDA-SANCHEZ, No. 17-71665 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-766-580 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2018** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Jose Rafael Pineda-Sanchez, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). We have 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 agency’s conclusion that Pineda-Sanchez did not establish he suffered past persecution where he was not personally harmed or threatened, and did not establish that his uncle’s killing was part of a pattern or practice of persecution closely tied to him. See id. at 1060. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Pineda-Sanchez did not establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution where he remained unharmed in El Salvador for three years after his uncle was killed, and his similarly situated teenaged siblings remained in El Salvador unharmed. See Aruta v. INS, 80 F.3d 1389, 1395 (9th Cir. 1996) (petitioner did not establish objectively reasonable fear of persecution where similarly situated family member remained unharmed in the “alleged zone of danger”); Castillo v. INS, 951 F.2d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 1991) (“When determining the objective reasonableness of an alien’s claim of well- founded fear of persecution the BIA may properly consider as significant a petitioner’s continued safe and undisturbed residence in his homeland after the 2 17-71665 occurrence of the event which is alleged to have induced his fear.”). Thus, Pineda-Sanchez’s asylum claim fails. In this case, because Pineda-Sanchez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Pineda-Sanchez 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 (2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 17-71665 17-71665 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Jose Pineda-Sanchez v. Jefferson Sessions, III 15 June 2018 Agency Unpublished ea44bd5e441b9531ea36c481380c03142aca82ef
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals