N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSE LUIS GRIJALVA-FLORES, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-72885 Age n c y No. A089-859-524 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 Ja

nua ry 21, 2015 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, GOULD, a n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Jose Luis Grija lva -Flore s , a nat ive and c i tiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a p pe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ion for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture (“ C AT” ). W e have 

# FIL ED JAN 28 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings. Ze haty e v . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006). W e de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. Grija lva -Flore s doe s not ra ise any c ha lle nge to the a ge nc y ’ s dispositive finding tha

t he withdre whis a sy lum a pplic ation, or m ake any

argum e nts re g arding C AT re lie f. Se e Martine

z-Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th C ir. 1996) (issue s not spe c ific a lly

ra ise d a nd a rgue d in a pa rty ’ s ope n ing brie f are wa ive d). Thus, we de ny the pe tition a s to Grija lva -Flore s’ s a sy lum and C AT c la im s. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s finding tha

t Grija lva -Flore s’ s e xpe rie nc e did not rise

to the le ve l of pe rse c ution. Se e N ahrv ani v . Gonzale

s , 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th C ir. 2005) (re c ord did not c om pe l finding of pa st pe rse c ution). Furthe r, c ontra ry to Grija l va -Flore s ’ s c o nte ntion, thea g e n c y did not im prope rly ana ly z e his pa st pe rse c ution c l a im . Substa n tia l e vide nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s finding tha

t Grija lva -Flore s did not e sta blish it is m

ore like ly tha n not that he will bepe rse c ute d, give n his re loc ation without inc ide nt within El Sa lva dor, se e O c hav e v . IN

S , 254 F.3d 859, 867-68 (9th C ir. 2001), a nd the a bse nc e of a

ny e vide nc e of c ontinuing inte re st in him , se e Prasad v . IN S, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th C ir. 1995). In light of our c onc lusions, we do not re a c h Grija lva -Flore s’ s soc ia l group c onte ntions. Thus, his c la im for withholding of rem ova l fa ils. 1 2 - 7 2 8 8 5 2This dism issa l is without pre

judic e to pe titione r’ s se e king prose c utoria l disc re tion or de fe rre d a c t ion from the De pa rtm e nt of Hom e l and Se c urity . Se e Re no v . Ame ric an-Arab Anti-Discrimination C ommitte e (AADC

) , 525 U.S. 471, 483-85 (1999) (sta

ting tha t prose c utoria l disc re tion by the a ge nc y

c an be grante d at any sta ge , inc luding a fte r the c onc lusion of judic ia l re vie w). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 2 8 8 5 3