Case Name: Jose Gilberto TORRES, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-03
Citations: 667 F. App'x 946
Docket Number: No. 14-73900
Parties: Jose Gilberto TORRES, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 946–947

Head Matter:
Jose Gilberto TORRES, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-73900
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
FILED August 3, 2016
Edgardo Quintanilla, Attorney, Quintan-illa Law Firm, INC., Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner
Papú Sandhu, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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 Gilberto Torres, 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 and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Torres failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution from gang members on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We reject Torres' contentions that the agency applied an incorrect legal standard, or otherwise erred in analyzing his case. Thus, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (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.