NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 3 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS FEDERICO CORDOVA- No. 17-73286
PONCE,
Agency No. A208-269-851
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 27, 2018**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Federico Cordova-Ponce, 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
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We 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). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum because Cordova-
Ponce failed to establish that he was or would be targeted by gang members on
account of a protected ground. See Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 504 (9th
Cir. 2013) (active duty military members do not constitute a social group for
asylum purposes); see also Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011)
(even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must
still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such
group”) (emphasis in original). In the absence of a nexus to a protected ground,
Cordova-Ponce’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Cordova-Ponce failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador.
See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized
evidence of violence and crime was insufficient to establish CAT eligibility);
Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013) (despite “troubling
country reports,” evidence did not compel the conclusion that it was more likely
than not that the petitioner would be tortured upon return), abrogated on other
2 17-73286
grounds by Guerrero v. Whitaker, No. 15-72080, 2018 WL 5852651 (9th Cir. Nov.
9, 2018).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-73286