NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OVIDIO ANTONIO MONTES,

Petitioner,

v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 70174
Agency No. A094

- 312

- 948

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2021 * *

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Ovidio Antonio Montes, 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 th e Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JAN 26 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 70174

his request to terminate proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v.

Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2 006). We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to terminate and we review de novo questions of

law. Dominguez v. Barr , 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition

for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s dete rmination that Montes failed

to establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution

. See Gu v.

Gonzales , 454 F.3d 1014, 1019

- 21 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[p]ersecution is an extreme
concept, and . . . does not include every sort of treatment our soc iety regards as
offensive” (internal quotation and citation omitted)). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s determination that Montes did not establish a well

- founded
fear of future persecution. See id . at 1022 (petitioner failed to present “c ompelling,
objective evidence demonstrating a well

- founded fear of persecution”). Thus,

Montes’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Montes failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. S ee Zehatye , 453 F.3d at

1190.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Montes failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the3 19

- 70174

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador

. See Aden v.

Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) ; see also Zheng v. Holde r, 644 F.3d

829, 835

- 36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative).

The BIA did not abuse i ts discretion in denying Montes’s request to
terminate proceedings, where Montes’s contention that the immigration judge
lacked jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr , 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission of certai n information from a notice to
appear can be cured for jurisdictional purposes by later hearing notice).
As stated in the court’s April 3, 2019 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENI ED.