Opinion
19-72325
05-27-2022
LUIS MIGUEL REALES FLORES, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted May 17, 2022
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A206-021-216
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Luis Miguel Reales Flores, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's conclusion that the threats Reales Flores experienced did not rise to the level of persecution and that he otherwise failed to establish that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) ("We have been most likely to find persecution where threats are repeated, specific and combined with confrontation or other mistreatment." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant's "desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground"). Thus, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT protection because Reales Flores failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).