Case Name: Jose QUINTEROS, AKA Jose Alfredo Quinteros-Zavala, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-20
Citations: 665 F. App'x 641
Docket Number: No. 14-73347
Parties: Jose QUINTEROS, AKA Jose Alfredo Quinteros-Zavala, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAYY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 665
Pages: 641–641

Head Matter:
Jose QUINTEROS, AKA Jose Alfredo Quinteros-Zavala, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-73347
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 20, 2016
Hector Jose Chinchilla, Esquire, Attorney, Chinchilla & Associates PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner
OIL, Imran Raza Zaidi, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: WALLACE, LEAYY, 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 Quinteros, 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 withholding of removal. 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. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Quinteros failed to establish a nexus between the harm he suffered and fears and his political opinion. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act "requires that a protected ground represent 'one central reason' for an asylum applicant's persecution"). Thus, Quintero's withholding of removal claim fails. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.