FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NICOLAS CELESTINO ORELLANA- No. 11-72126
BELTRANENA,
Agency No. A099-482-656
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Nicolas Celestino Orellana-Beltranena, 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
*
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).
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), and we deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Orellana-
Beltranena failed to establish the threats and extortion demands he experienced in
El Salvador rise to the level of persecution. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d
1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2005) (threats did not compel finding of past persecution
where the petitioner never had a personal confrontation with the people threatening
him). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Orellana-
Beltranena failed to establish an objectively reasonable well-founded fear of future
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility
of future persecution too speculative). The record does not support Orellana-
Beltranena’s contention that the BIA failed to fully articulate its reasons. Thus,
Orellana-Beltranena’s asylum claim fails.
Because Orellana-Beltranena did not meet the lower burden of proof for
asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d
at 1190.
2 11-72126
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Orellana-Beltranena 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
El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-72126