NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL ANTONIO GARAY- No. 13-73025
CASTILLO,
Agency No. A029-134-152
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Manuel Antonio Garay-Castillo, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, 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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 agency’s determination that Garay-Castillo
failed to establish past persecution. See id. at 1185-87. Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s determination that Garay-Castillo failed to establish an
objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d
1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Garay-
Castillo’s asylum claim.
Because Garay-Castillo failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Garay-Castillo failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Nicaraguan government.
See Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-73025