Opinion
No. 13-74225
05-22-2018
ESTANISLAO ALVAREZ-RANGEL, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A095-776-834 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Estanislao Alvarez-Rangel, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for withholding of removal and 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. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Among other reasons, the agency found that Alvarez-Rangel failed to establish past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution on account of a protected ground because he failed to establish he was a member of his proposed social group. Substantial evidence supports this finding. See Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant must establish that the harm was or would be on account of a protected ground). Thus, Alvarez-Rangel's withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Alvarez-Rangel failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (evidence did not compel conclusion that petitioner established the state action necessary for CAT relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.