Opinion
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A098-653-984.
REGGIE JACKSON RODRIGUEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, Pro se, Bell, CA.
For ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent: OIL, Gladys Marta Steffens Guzman, Esquire, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Reggie Jackson Rodriguez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from 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, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that Rodriguez-Gonzalez failed to establish that his political opinion, family membership, or any other protected ground was one central reason for the mistreatment he experienced in Nicaragua. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005) (" [T]he record provides no evidence that [the people petitioner feared] imputed political beliefs to [him]." ), abrogated on other grounds by Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act " requires that a protected ground represent 'one central reason' for an asylum applicant's persecution" ). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Rodriguez-Gonzalez did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Belayneh v. INS, 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding no well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.
Because Rodriguez-Gonzalez failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Rodriguez-Gonzalez failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Nicaragua. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). We otherwise reject Rodriguez-Gonzalez's CAT contention.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.