NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TOMAS MEJIA, AKA Tomas Mejia No. 15-71538 Cardoza, Agency No. A094-303-784 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK P. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 2, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, KOH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Tomas Mejia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction * 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). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mejia failed to file his asylum application within a reasonable period after losing Temporary Protected Status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Al Ramahi v. Holder, 725 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2013) (reviewing “reasonable period” determination for substantial evidence). Thus, Mejia’s asylum claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Mejia failed to establish he experienced past harm that rises to the level of persecution, see Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive), or a clear probability of future persecution in El Salvador, see Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner’s evidence did not show clear probability of future persecution). Thus, Mejia’s withholding of removal claim fails. The agency’s denial of CAT protection is also supported by substantial evidence because Mejia failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 15-71538 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 15-71538 15-71538 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Tomas Mejia v. Merrick Garland 9 June 2022 Agency Unpublished a5455a75e5dfcee063ccf23f8dc80d74de5a3a3e
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals