FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ALEJANDRO VASQUEZ-TREJO, No. 11-71122
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-303-898
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Alejandro Vasquez-Trejo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
withholding of removal and protection 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 have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070
(9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Vasquez-Trejo testified that guerrillas tried to forcibly recruit him during the
Salvadoran civil war and that he fears ex-guerrillas or gang members will harm
him if he returns. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
Vasquez-Trejo did not establish past persecution on account of his membership in
either of his proposed social groups. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-
84 (1992) (petitioner must provide evidence of persecutor’s motive and failed to
show nexus to protected ground for forced conscription efforts by guerrilla
organization). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that
Vasquez-Trejo did not establish a nexus to a protected ground for his fear of future
persecution. See id.; see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.
2010). Thus, Vasquez-Trejo’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Vasquez-Trejo failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be
tortured at the instigation of or with the acquiescence of the government if returned
to El Salvador. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
2 11-71122
This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking prosecutorial
discretion or deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security. See
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471,
483-85 (1999) (stating that prosecutorial discretion by the agency can be granted at
any stage, including after the conclusion of judicial review).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-71122