FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 20 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRUZ NELSON SANCHEZ VILLALTA, No. 10-70044
a.k.a. Cruz N. Sanchez, a.k.a. Nelson
Sanchez, a.k.a. Cruz Nelson Villalta Agency No. A094-061-742
Sanchez,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM*
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 13, 2014**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Cruz Nelson Sanchez Villalta, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
*
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).
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Because our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, we do not consider
Sanchez Villalta’s challenges to the IJ’s opinion to the extent that the BIA did not
expressly adopt it. See Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2012).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Sanchez Villalta failed
to establish a nexus between past or future harm and a protected ground. See INS
v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some
evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial.”). Thus, Sanchez Villalta’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail. See also Garcia-Milian v. Holder, No. 09-
71461, 21014 WL 555138 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014) (record did not compel the
conclusion that the petitioner was persecuted on account of a protected ground). In
light of our conclusion, we need not reach Sanchez Villalta’s remaining
contentions regarding asylum and withholding of removal.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Sanchez
Villalta failed to establish any mistreatment he fears would occur at the instigation
of, or with the acquiescence of, the Salvadoran government. See Silaya v.
2 10-70044
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, Sanchez Villalta’s CAT
claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-70044