FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERSON ECHEVERRIA, No. 12-71336
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-750-694
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Gerson Echeverria, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 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, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the
petition for review.
Echeverria does not raise any challenge to the agency’s dispositive finding
that his asylum application is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1998). Thus, we deny the petition as to Echeverria’s
asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Echeverria failed to
establish it is more likely than not he will suffer persecution on account of a
protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-1016 (9th Cir. 2010);
see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID
Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum
applicant’s persecution”). Thus, Echeverria’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Echeverria failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if
returned to Guatemala. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir.
2011). We reject Echeverria’s contention that the agency did not consider all the
evidence relevant to his CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-71336