UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1741
LEO ACUNA ROCHA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 8, 2016 Decided: February 17, 2016
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Francis Fraser, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Anthony O. Pottinger, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leo Acuna Rocha, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ)
order denying his applications for withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny
the petition for review.
An alien is eligible for withholding of removal if he shows
that, if he returned to his native country, “it is more likely
than not that [his] ‘life or freedom would be threatened’”
because of his “‘race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion.’” Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(A) (2012)). When assessing an alien’s petition for
review, we must uphold the Board’s decision that an alien is
ineligible for withholding of removal unless the Board’s
decision is “‘manifestly contrary to law and an abuse of
discretion.’” Mirisawo v. Holder, 599 F.3d 391, 396-97 (4th
Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2012)). The
Board’s decision regarding eligibility for withholding of
removal will be affirmed if it is supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). We conclude that
substantial evidence supports the finding that Acuna Rocha
2
failed to show a nexus between the harm he suffered or the harm
he fears and a protected ground. We also conclude that
substantial evidence supports the finding that Acuna Rocha
failed to show that he was eligible for protection under the
CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2015).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3