UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1852

LUIS ERNESTO CASTILLO-PENA,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: October 2, 2012 Decided: October 9, 2012

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Luis Ernesto Castillo-Pena, Petitioner Pro Se. Aimee J. 

Carmichael, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Luis Ernesto Castillo-Pena, a native and citizen of El 

Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, 

withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention 

Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.

Castillo-Pena contends that the Board erred in denying 

his motion for a second extension of time in which to file his 

brief. The Board has the discretion to extend the time for a 

party to file a brief upon the party’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.3(c)(1) (2012). Castillo-Pena was warned that generally 

the Board only gives one extension. He was further warned that 

if he received one extension, he was to assume he would not get 

another. We conclude the Board did not abuse its discretion in

denying Castillo-Pena’s second motion for an extension after it 

had already granted him an extension. He failed to show 

extraordinary circumstances that would warrant additional time 

to file his brief. 

Castillo-Pena also challenges the denial of his 

application for CAT relief. He contends the immigration judge 

erred in finding that he failed to show it was more likely than 

not that he will be tortured or killed by police because of his 

tattoos. 
3

To qualify for protection under the CAT, a petitioner 

bears the burden of showing that “it is more likely than not 

that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed 

country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2012). To state 

a prima facie case for relief under the CAT, a petitioner must 

show that he will be subject to “severe pain or suffering, 

whether physical or mental . . . by or at the instigation of or 

with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other 

person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.18(a)(1) (2012); see Saintha v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 243, 

246 & n.2 (4th Cir. 2008). “A public official acquiesces to 

torture if, ‘prior to the activity constituting torture, [the 

official] ha[s] awareness of such activity and thereafter 

breach[es] his or her legal responsibility to intervene to 

prevent such activity.’” Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440, 449 

(4th Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(7)). The 

applicant need not prove the torture would be inflicted on 

account of a protected ground. Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 

113, 116 (4th Cir. 2011). 

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the 

finding that Castillo-Pena failed in his burden of proof. There 

was insufficient evidence in support of his claim that he will 

be tortured because of his tattoos. 
4

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED