FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 5 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDGARDO ANTONIO LOPEZ No. 08-73961
SALAZAR,
Agency No. A070-866-012
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 2, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Edgardo Antonio Lopez Salazar, 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 decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the threatened
kidnaping at Lopez’s school and the disturbance at his grandmother’s house, even
considered cumulatively and viewed from Lopez’s perspective as a child, do not
rise to the level of past persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182
(9th Cir. 2003) (unfulfilled threats “constitute harassment rather than
persecution”); see also Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzalez, 496 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th
Cir. 2007). Accordingly, because the BIA determined that Lopez failed to
establish past persecution, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting his
claim for humanitarian asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Lopez
failed to establish an objective basis for his fear of future persecution due to
changed country conditions in El Salvador, including the political prominence of
the ARENA party and the FMLN’s participation in electoral politics. See
Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002) (where there is no past
persecution “the IJ and the BIA are entitled to rely on all relevant evidence in the
record, including a State Department report, in considering whether the petitioner
2 08-73961
has demonstrated that there is good reason to fear future persecution”). We reject
Lopez’s contention that the single incident of violence by an FMLN politician
described in the 2006 Country Report compels a different conclusion.
Accordingly, Lopez’s claim for asylum fails.
Because Lopez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his claim for
withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d at
1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Lopez failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if he
returns to El Salvador. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747-748 (9th
Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-73961