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

A-M ENDOZA, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-70155 Age n c y No. A095-738-786
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

June 22, 2015 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, GR AB ER , a nd W . FLETC H ER , C irc uit Judge s . C a lixto Se gura -M e n doz a , a native and c itiz e n

of El Sa lva dor, pe t itions for
re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture(“ C AT” ).



# FIL ED JUN 25 2015 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). Ac c o rdingly , pe titione r’ s re que s t for ora l argum e nt, m a de in his opening brie f, is de nie d.W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e fa c t ua l findings. Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th C ir. 2010). W e de ny the p e tition for re v i e w. Se gura -M e ndoz a

ha s not c ha lle nge d the a ge nc y ’ s dispositive de te rm ination that his a sy lum

c la im is tim e -barre d. Se e Martine z-Se rrano v . IN

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

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in a pa rty ’ s ope ning brie f are wa ive d). Thus, we de ny the pe tition a s to Se gura M e n doz a ’ s a sy lum

c la im
. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t Se gura -M e ndoz a ’ s e xpe rie nc e s with FM LN m e m b e rs a nd ga ng m e m be rs in El Sa l va dor did not rise to the l e ve l of pa st pe rse c ution. Se e Lim v . IN S , 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th C ir. 2000) (re c ord did not c om

pe l finding thre at s a ga inst pe t itione r, inc luding de ath thre ats, c onstitute d pa st pe rse c ution). Substa ntia l e vide nc e a l so supports the B IA’ s de te rm i nation tha

t Se gura -M e ndoz a

fa ile d to e sta

blish it is m

ore like ly tha n not that he would bepe rse c ute d if re turne d to El Sa lva dor. Se e Hox ha v . Ashc roft , 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th C ir. 2003) (to qualify for withholding of rem ova l, pe titione r m ust show tha

t it is more p roba

ble tha n not tha t he would suffe r future pe rse c ution). Thus, Se g ura -M e ndoz a ’ s withholding of re m ova l c la im

fa ils.

1 3
- 7 0 1 5 5 2Fina lly , substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s de nia l of C AT re l ie f be c a use Se gura -M e ndoz a

fa ile d to de m onstra

t e it is m ore like l y

tha n not he would be torture d by

or with thec onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of a public offic ia l in El Sa lva d or. Se e Silay a v . Muk ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2008). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 3
- 7 0 1 5 5 3