NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDUARDO LUIS RODRIGUEZ CASTRO, No. 15-71660
AKA Eduardo Luis Rodriguez,
Agency No. A094-456-001
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Eduardo Luis Rodriguez Castro, native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that
deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and
regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558
F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in finding that Rodriguez Castro failed to establish
membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125,
1137-38 (9th Cir. 2016) (proposed social group of former gang members who have
returned to El Salvador is not cognizable); Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 945-
46 (9th Cir. 2007) (concluding that former gang members “is far too unspecific and
amorphous to be called a social group, whether that person is tattooed or not”). In
light of our conclusion, we do not reach Rodriguez Castro’s contentions as to
emotional or psychological trauma. Thus, Rodriguez Castro’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Rodriguez Castro failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 15-71660
Eduardo Rodriguez Castro v. Jefferson Sessions
Combined Opinion