Case Name: Jose Edilberto AYALA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-04
Citations: 490 F. App'x 79
Docket Number: No. 10-73216
Parties: Jose Edilberto AYALA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 490
Pages: 79–80

Head Matter:
Jose Edilberto AYALA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Respondent.
No. 10-73216.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Jan. 4, 2013.
Alejandro Garcia, Law Offices of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Kristen Gi-uffreda Chapman, Trial, Shelley Goad, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Edilberto Ayala, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings and review de novo legal conclusions. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that Ayala failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by, or with the consent or acquiescence of the El Salvadoran government if he returns to El Salvador. See Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1043, 1055-56 (9th Cir.2006) (arrest and severe beating did not amount to torture); see also Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747-48 (CAT relief denied where petitioner feared torture at the hands of private individuals and there was no evidence the government would acquiesce in torture).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.