NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
PABLO ANTONIO CHACON- No. 10-73664
MARTINEZ,
Agency No. A097-894-356
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Pablo Antonio Chacon-Martinez, 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 relief under the Convention
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 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 review de novo due process claims, Liu v. Holder,
640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Chacon-Martinez did
not establish past persecution or a well-founded future fear of persecution on
account of a protected ground. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483 (petitioner
must provide some evidence of the persecutor’s motivation). Thus, Chacon-
Martinez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Molina-Morales v.
INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Chacon-Martinez 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).
Finally, we reject Chacon-Martinez’s claim that the agency violated his due
process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner
must show error and prejudice to establish a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-73664