Case ID: f-appx_621/html/0438-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Moises VELASQUEZ-MEDINA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70281.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 26, 2015.
    Alexander H. Lubarsky, Esquire, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Ann Carroll Varnon, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Moises Velasquez-Medina, 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zhao v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even if credible, Velasquez-Medina failed to establish past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-1016 (9th Cir.2010); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). We reject Velasquez-Medina’s contention that the agency decisions do not provide adequate reasoning to allow a meaningful review. Thus, Velasquez-Medina’s withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.