FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS HUMBERTO LOZA- No. 09-73869
GONZALEZ,
Agency No. A094-448-536
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Humberto Loza-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under 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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163,
1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s
determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371
F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). 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.
Loza-Gonzalez contends he suffered past persecution and that he has a well-
founded fear of future persecution by gangs in El Salvador. Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s finding that Loza-Gonzalez failed to show past persecution
or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992); Parussimova v. Mukasey,
555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected
ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”).
Accordingly, Loza-Gonzalez’s asylum claim fails.
Because Loza-Gonzalez failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum,
his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at
1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Loza-
2 09-73869
Gonzalez is not entitled to CAT relief because he failed to demonstrate it is more
likely than not that he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the El
Salvadorean government if he returns to El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524
F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-73869