FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAUL HERMAN VELASCO- No. 10-72355
ORELLANA,
Agency No. A075-785-810
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.
Saul Herman Velasco-Orellana, 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Velasco-Orellana presented evidence that guerrillas randomly attempted to
forcibly recruit him to fill their ranks and later threatened him because he had run
away. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Velasco-Orellana
failed to establish past harm or a fear of future harm on account of a protected
ground. See INS v. Elias Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83 (1992). We lack
jurisdiction to consider Velasco-Orellana’s social group claim, because he did not
exhaust this contention before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678
(9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to consider issue that have not been
administratively exhausted). Further, in light of our nexus determination, we do
not address Velasco-Orellana’s contention regarding the severity of his past harm.
Thus, Velasco-Orellana’s asylum claim fails.
Because Velasco-Orellana has not established eligibility for asylum, he
necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
2 10-72355
Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief because Velasco-
Orellana failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of a government official if he returns to El
Salvador. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of
voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1006
(9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 10-72355