NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 14 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
HUGO ERNESTO HURTADO, No. 12-71916
Petitioner, Agency No. A027-534-004
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 6, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and FRIEDMAN,*** District
Judge.
*
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).
***
The Honorable Paul L. Friedman, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.
Page 2 of 3
1. Substantial evidence supports the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) denial of Hugo Hurtado’s application for asylum. The BIA properly
found that the government’s evidence rebutted, on an individualized basis, the
specific grounds for Hurtado’s fear of future persecution on account of imputed
political opinion. See Popova v. INS, 273 F.3d 1251, 1259 (9th Cir. 2001). The
government submitted two country reports on El Salvador establishing that (1) the
civil war ended in 1993, (2) the military has been restructured, and (3) the
Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front is now the majority political party.
That evidence supports the BIA’s determination that fundamentally changed
conditions rebutted the presumption of future persecution. See Singh v. Holder,
753 F.3d 826, 832–33 (9th Cir. 2014); Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d
995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s
conclusion that Hurtado did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution from
other sources—namely, criminal gangs. The BIA reasonably concluded that
Hurtado’s testimony established only the “mere prevalence of violence” and not
that he would be a particular target.
2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hurtado humanitarian
asylum. See Belayneh v. INS, 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 2000). The BIA found
that Hurtado is statutorily eligible for such relief due to the severity of his 1985
Page 3 of 3
mistreatment, and took into account the severity of his past persecution. The BIA
also considered relevant factors in Hurtado’s favor, including his significant family
ties and his employment during his 25 years in the United States. See Gulla v.
Gonzales, 498 F.3d 911, 916, 918–19 (9th Cir. 2007); Kazlauskas v. INS, 46 F.3d
902, 907 (9th Cir. 1995). The BIA nonetheless concluded that Hurtado’s record of
criminal convictions, stemming from his abuse of alcohol, and his lack of
rehabilitation outweigh these favorable factors. That determination was not an
abuse of discretion.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.