NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 15 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE RAFAEL PINEDA-SANCHEZ, No. 17-71665
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-766-580
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Rafael Pineda-Sanchez, a 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 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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Pineda-Sanchez
did not establish he suffered past persecution where he was not personally harmed
or threatened, and did not establish that his uncle’s killing was part of a pattern or
practice of persecution closely tied to him. See id. at 1060. Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s conclusion that Pineda-Sanchez did not establish an
objectively reasonable fear of future persecution where he remained unharmed in
El Salvador for three years after his uncle was killed, and his similarly situated
teenaged siblings remained in El Salvador unharmed. See Aruta v. INS, 80 F.3d
1389, 1395 (9th Cir. 1996) (petitioner did not establish objectively reasonable fear
of persecution where similarly situated family member remained unharmed in the
“alleged zone of danger”); Castillo v. INS, 951 F.2d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 1991)
(“When determining the objective reasonableness of an alien’s claim of well-
founded fear of persecution the BIA may properly consider as significant a
petitioner’s continued safe and undisturbed residence in his homeland after the
2 17-71665
occurrence of the event which is alleged to have induced his fear.”). Thus,
Pineda-Sanchez’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Pineda-Sanchez failed to establish eligibility for
asylum, he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Pineda-Sanchez failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be
tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-71665