Case ID: f-appx_388/html/0612-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Luis Alonso CARRANZA-VALLE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70743.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 19, 2010.
    Martin Avila Robles, Immigration Practice Group, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Kathryn DeAngelis, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Alonso Carranza-Valle, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008), and we review de novo due process claims, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Carranza-Valle failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to El Salvador. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 748 (9th Cir.2008).

We reject Carranza-Valle’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights by failing to adequately consider his CAT claim because it is not supported by the record. Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to establish due process claim).

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