Case Name: Cesar Augusto CISNEROS-VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-02
Citations: 470 F. App'x 625
Docket Number: No. 09-72332
Parties: Cesar Augusto CISNEROS-VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 470
Pages: 625–625

Head Matter:
Cesar Augusto CISNEROS-VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72332.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed March 2, 2012.
Steven P. Brazelton, Law Offices of Steven P. Brazelton, Reno, NV, for Petitioner.
Stuart Nickum, OIL, 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: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, 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
Cesar Augusto Cisneros-Valdez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of CAT relief because CisnerosValdez failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured at the instigation or with the acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008). We reject Cisneros-Valdez's contention that the agency did not consider the State Department country report as he has not overcome the presumption that it considered this evidence. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006). Accordingly, Cisneros-Valdez's CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.