Case Name: Marta Concepcion ORTIZ-CANAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-22
Citations: 366 F. App'x 789
Docket Number: No. 08-70606
Parties: Marta Concepcion ORTIZ-CANAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 366
Pages: 789–790

Head Matter:
Marta Concepcion ORTIZ-CANAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70606.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed Feb. 22, 2010.
Martin Avila Robles, Immigration Practice Group a Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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
Marta Concepcion Ortiz-Canas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, Silaya v. Muka-sey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because although the record evidence indicates that widespread gang violence exists in El Salvador, Ortiz-Canas failed to establish that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured by the government or with the government's acquiescence. See id. at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publi- • cation and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.