FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 12 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIZ MAURILIO DE SOUZA, No. 11-71171
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-932-435
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 27, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Luiz Maurilio de Souza petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his
claims for withholding of removal and relief 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 deny the petition for review. Because the parties are familiar with
the history of this case, we need not recount it here.
When, as here, the BIA adopts an IJ’s reasoning, we review both
decisions. Paramasamy v. Ashcroft, 295 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 2002). We
review questions of law de novo. Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106, 1113 (9th
Cir. 2013). “[T]he BIA’s purely factual determinations [are reviewed] for
substantial evidence.” Id. The BIA’s determination of eligibility will stand unless
“no reasonable factfinder could find the petitioner ineligible for [relief].” Lim v.
INS, 224 F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir. 2000).
With respect to his claim for withholding of removal, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s finding that Maurilio de Souza did not establish past
persecution. See id. at 933-36. Further, the record does not compel the conclusion
that Maurilio de Souza demonstrated that it is more likely than not that he will be
persecuted by or with the acquiescence of the Brazilian government.1 Id. at 938.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Maurilio de Souza did not show a likelihood greater than fifty percent that
he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Brazilian government upon
returning to Brazil. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION DENIED.
1
Because we affirm the BIA on the lack of past or future persecution, we do
not reach the social group issue.