FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 20 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE ANGEL SALAZAR-PRADA, No. 11-73490
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-006-618
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Angel Salazar-Prada, a native and citizen of Peru, 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 the
agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the threats
Salazar-Prada received in Peru did not rise to the level of past persecution. See
Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone . . .
constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when the
threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.”) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding
that Salazar-Prada failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in
Peru. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of
future persecution too speculative). Thus, Salazar-Prada’s asylum claim fails.
Because Salazar-Prada failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his
withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Salazar-Prada’s
CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Peru. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). The record
2 11-73490
does not support Salazar-Prada’s contention that the BIA failed to properly
consider his CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-73490