NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JOSE SANTOS LOPEZ-SANCHEZ, No. 09-73594
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-825-260
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jose Santos Lopez-Sanchez, 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 withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Lopez-Sanchez
failed to establish the gang’s attempt to recruit him and the threats he received rose
to the level of past persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000).
The record also does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that
Lopez-Sanchez will be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v.
Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Lopez-Sanchez’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Lopez-Sanchez failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured
by or with the acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
We reject Lopez-Sanchez’s contention that the agency applied the wrong
legal standard. Further, Lopez-Sanchez has not overcome the presumption that the
BIA considered all the evidence in the record. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220
F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000).
2 09-73594
Finally, Lopez-Sanchez’s motion for a bond hearing is denied. He may seek
administrative remedies. See, e.g., Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160
(9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-73594