NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JOSE DOMINGO HERNANDEZ, AKA No. 12-72134
Jesus Alonso Davila,
Agency No. A094-318-693
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jose Domingo Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 942
n.1 (9th Cir. 2007). 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.
Hernandez does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his
asylum application was time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to his asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Hernandez did not
establish a nexus for the incidents he recounted, because he did not establish a link
between his uncles’ political activities and himself, and did not establish that any
harm he experienced while he was in the military was on account of a protected
ground. See 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”); see also Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024,
1029 (9th Cir. 2000) (persecution because of current membership in military is not
on account of a protected ground). In light of our conclusions, we need not reach
Hernandez’s contentions regarding speculation and corroboration. Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Hernandez did not establish he
2 12-72134
would more likely than not be harmed by anyone upon return to El Salvador. See
Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (insufficient evidence to show
reasonable fear of persecution). Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.
In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Hernandez 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.
Finally, we deny Hernandez’s request for judicial notice as unnecessary.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-72134