NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 11 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS SANCHEZ-MENDOZA, No. 15-72538
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-150-892
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and MUELLER,*** District
Judge.
Sanchez-Mendoza petitions for review of the dismissal by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of his appeal from a decision of an Immigration
*
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).
***
The Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation.
Judge “(IJ”) denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal, as
well as for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s findings of fact for
substantial evidence, Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014), and its
legal conclusions de novo, Romero-Mendoza v. Holder, 665 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th
Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
With respect to asylum and withholding of removal, Sanchez-Mendoza has
failed to establish persecution on account of a protected ground. Bringas-
Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1062 (9th Cir. 2017). Sanchez-Mendoza
relies on membership in a “particular social group,” namely a group comprising
former members of a gang opposed to the Mara Salvatrucha. Our prior decision in
Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1138 (9th Cir. 2016), issued after Sanchez-
Mendoza filed his petition, forecloses this argument. See also Arteaga v. Mukasey,
511 F.3d 940, 945–46 (9th Cir. 2007).
With respect to protection under the CAT, Sanchez-Mendoza has not met his
burden to establish that he will “more likely than not” be subject to torture by
private persons acting with the consent or acquiescence of public officials, or
torture by public officials themselves, if he is removed to El Salvador. Lopez-
Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110, 1113–14 (9th Cir. 2011). In particular,
Sanchez-Mendoza has not established that the government acquiesced in torture
2
when public officials did not act on his reports of the harm he experienced more
than a decade prior.
Sanchez-Mendoza contends that the IJ failed to consider a report by the
Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) and several news articles in the record.
But the IJ expressly acknowledged eight exhibits, all of which were admitted into
evidence. These exhibits included the CRS report and news articles submitted by
Sanchez-Mendoza. The IJ did not fail to mention any “highly probative or
potentially dispositive evidence” of government acquiescence in torture because
neither the CRS report nor the news articles contain such evidence. Cole v.
Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771-72 (9th Cir. 2011); Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d
829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016) (neither “a general ineffectiveness on the government’s
part” nor an “inability to bring the criminals to justice” is “evidence of
acquiescence, as defined by the applicable regulations”). There is no reason not to
“accept the IJ’s general statement that he considered all the evidence before him.”
Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, Sanchez-Mendoza contends that the BIA’s one-sentence denial of
CAT protection provided insufficient explanation of its reasoning. But there is no
indication that the BIA did not consider all of the evidence before it. See Cole, 659
F.3d at 771-72. Although the BIA’s reasoning was brief, it was in this case
sufficient. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).
3
PETITION DENIED.
4