Case Name: Jonathan Alexander REYES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-07
Citations: 585 F. App'x 350
Docket Number: No. 13-70162
Parties: Jonathan Alexander REYES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, McKEOWN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 350–350

Head Matter:
Jonathan Alexander REYES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-70162.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 13, 2014.
Filed Oct. 7, 2014.
Jonathan Alexander Reyes, Newton, MA, pro se.
OIL, Gregory Darrell Mack, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, McKEOWN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The BIA didn't err in denying Reyes's application for protection under the Convention Against Torture. Nothing in the record or the BIA's decision indicates a failure to consider all the evidence. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir.2011). Indeed, the BIA explicitly considered much of the evidence Reyes provided, including the 2010 Country Report and the 2007 Harvard article, and it wasn't required to "expressly refute on the record every single piece of evidence." Feng Gui Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir.2009). It then reasonably concluded that although "the situation for persons with gang related tattoos in El Salvador may well be highly dangerous," it is not "more likely than not at this time that [Reyes] will be tortured upon return to El Salvador." See Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049-50 (9th Cir.2013); Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1049 (9th Cir.2010). In light of this conclusion and in context, the typographical error Reyes points out doesn't require a remand.
DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.