Case ID: f-appx_603/html/0579-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Domingo HERNANDEZ, aka Jesus Alonso Davila, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72134.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2015.
    
    Filed March 24, 2015.
    
      Elsa Ines Martinez, Esquire, Law Offices of Elsa Martinez, PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Christina J. Martin, Esquire, Trial, Oil, 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: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Domingo Hernandez, 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 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have juris-. diction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 942 n. 1 (9th Cir.2007). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Hernandez does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his asylum application was time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to his asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Hernandez did not establish a nexus for the incidents he recounted, because he did not establish a link between his uncles’ political activities and himself, and did not establish that any harm he experienced while he was in the military was on account of a protected ground. See 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”); see also Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir.2000) (persecution because of current membership in military is not on account of a protected ground). In light of our conclusions, we need not reach Hernandez’s contentions regarding speculation and corroboration. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Hernandez did not establish he would more likely than not be harmed by anyone upon return to El Salvador. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2002) (insufficient evidence to show reasonable fear of persecution). Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.

In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because. Hernandez failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured at the instigation of or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

Finally, we deny Hernandez’s request for judicial notice as unnecessary.

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