Case ID: f-appx_573/html/0650-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Warner BONILLA-LOPEZ, a.k.a. Wilver Bonilla, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73379.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 19, 2014.
    Richard Miyamoto, Phung, Miyamoto & Diaz, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Dara Smith, Trial, Margaret Kuehne Taylor, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: CLIFTON, BEA, 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

Warner Bonilla-Lopez, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 385-86 (9th Cir.2012), and we deny the petition for review.

Bonilla-Lopez does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that he was convicted of a particularly serious crime. Accordingly, Bonilla-Lopez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See id. at 385.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Bonilla-Lopez failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government of 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.