N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SALVADOR

C ASTR O-FUENTES, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-71558 Age n c y No. A077-104-763 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2014 ** B e fore : C LIFTON, B EA, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Sa lva dor C a stro-Fue nte s pe t itions pro se for re vie wof the B oa

rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m i gration judge ’ s de c ision (“ IJ” ) de ny ing his a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, and re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture (“ C AT” ). 

# FIL ED MAY28 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 USC § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e fa c tua l findings, a n d re vie w de novo que stions of la w. Ze haty ev . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006). W e dism iss in pa rt a nd de ny the p e tition for re v i e w. The re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t C a stro-Fue nte s e sta

blishe d c ha nge d or e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s to e xc u se his untime ly a sy l um a pplic ation. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Furthe r, C a stro-Fue nte s’ c onte ntion tha t the IJ ne ve r a fforde d him

an opportunity

to pre se nt e vide n c e of c ha nge d c onditions to e xc use his untime ly

a sy lum a pplic ation is une xha

uste d. Se eBarron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004) (c ourt la c ks jurisdic t ion to re vie wc l a im s tha t c ould ha v e be e n ra ise d be l ow). Ac c ordingly , his a sy lum c l a im fa i ls. C a stro-Fue nte s’ c l a im

for withholding of rem ova l fa i ls be c a use the re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t it is more like ly

tha n not hewill be pe rse c ute d on a c c o unt of a

ny prote c te d ground if he re turns to El Sal va dor. Se eRamadan v . Gonzale s , 479 F.3d 646, 658 (9th C ir. 2007) (re c ord did not c om pe l c onc lusion that pe rse c ution wa s m ore like ly tha n not). Furthe r, substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of C AT re l ie f be c a use C a stro-Fue nte s fa ile d to show it is m ore like ly tha n not he will betorture d with thec onse nt or a c q

uie sc e nc e of the Sa lva dora n gove rnm e nt. Se eSantos1 2 - 7 1 5 5 8 2Le mus v . Muk ase y , 542 F.3d 738, 747-48 (9th C ir. 2008). W e re je c t C a stroFue nte s’ c onte ntion tha

t the B IA fa ile d to e xpla in why the re wa s no risk of torture . Se e N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C ir. 2010). C ontra ry to his c onte ntion, his te stim ony

of c ontinuing viole

nc e in El Sa l va dor doe s not e sta blish e ligibility for C AT re lie f. Se eSantos-Le mus , 542 F.3d a t 748; se ealso Garc iaMilian v . Holde r , No. 09-71461, 2014 W L 555138, a

t *6 (9th C ir. Se pt 18, 2013), as ame nde d

(e v i de nc e tha

t a gove rnm e nt ha s be e n ine ffe c tive in pre ve nting c rim ina l a c tivitie s doe s not ra ise an infe re nc e tha t public offic ia ls a

re like l y to a c quie sc e in torture , a

bse nt e vide nc e of c orruption or other ina bility or unwillingne ss to oppose c rim ina l orga niz ations). Fina lly , we la c k

jurisdic tion to re vie w C a stro-Fue nte s’ re m a ining c onte ntions re g arding volunta ry de pa rture and c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l be c a

use he fa ile d to ra ise the m

be fore the B IA. Se eBarron , 358 F.3d a t 678. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDISM ISSE D in par t; DE NIE D in par t.

1 2 - 7 1 5 5 8 3