Case ID: f-appx_539/html/0712-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wendi Marisol TEJADA-RAMIREZ; Cesar Osmin Alfaro-Tejada, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71460.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 1, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 20, 2013.
    Curtis F. Pierce, Law Offices of Curtis F. Pierce, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    OIL, Julie M. Iversen, Trial, 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: GRABER, 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

Wendi Marisol Tejada-Ramirez and Cesar Osmin Alfaro-Tejada, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusions that Petitioners did not experience past persecution and that their fear of future harm is too speculative to succeed. See Nagoulko v. INS, 838 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir.2003). Thus, Petitioners are not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal.

Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief because Petitioners failed to establish that it is more likely than not that they would be tortured if they return to El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

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