FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MELGAR SAUL ESCOBAR, No. 09-70099
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-209-475
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Melgar Saul Escobar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review de novo questions of law and review for substantial evidence the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
agency’s factual findings, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and
we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in concluding that Escobar failed to establish
eligibility for asylum and special rule cancellation of removal where he failed to
meet his burden to show that he received a sentence of less than one year for his
1992 stolen property conviction. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d); see also
Verdugo-Gonzalez v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1059, 1061 (9th Cir. 2009) (a conviction
under Cal. Penal Code. § 496(a) is categorically a theft offense under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(43)(G)); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B)(i) (aggravated felony bar to
asylum); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(a) (aggravated felony bar to special rule cancellation
of removal).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Escobar’s application
for withholding of removal because Escobar failed to demonstrate a clear
probability of persecution on account of any protected ground. See Delgado-Ortiz
v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that “returning
Mexicans from the United States” is too broad to qualify as a cognizable social
group); see also Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 2005).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Escobar’s
application for protection under the Convention Against Torture because Escobar
2 09-70099
failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he
returns to El Salvador. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 748 (9th Cir.
2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-70099