FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 16 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO OBDULIO ROJAS-RAMIREZ, No. 18-70667
Petitioner, Agency No. A074-809-493
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2020**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Pedro Rojas-Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, timely
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his
appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his application for withholding of
*
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).
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
1. The agency did not err in concluding that Petitioner is ineligible for
withholding of removal because substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding
that Petitioner did not establish a nexus between his fear of future harm and his
family status. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015–16 (9th Cir. 2010)
(reviewing for substantial evidence a finding that a petitioner’s potential
persecution would not be on account of a protected ground). Petitioner credibly
testified that, over a period of thirteen years, his family members were threatened
and attacked in El Salvador by various individuals for various reasons. According
to Petitioner, some of those incidents amounted to random violence, while others
were due to the desire of unknown individuals to avoid criminal prosecution, extort
money, or extort land. The record therefore does not compel a finding that any
persecution Petitioner would endure if returned to El Salvador would be on
account of his family membership. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) ("administrative
findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary"). Accordingly, Petitioner is not eligible for
withholding of removal.
2
2. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Petitioner
is ineligible for protection under CAT. See Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887,
891–92 (9th Cir. 2020) (stating the substantial evidence standard). Petitioner was
not harmed when previously living in El Salvador, and he presents no evidence of
a "particularized threat" that he would be tortured if returned. Dhital v. Mukasey,
532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). The record therefore does not
compel a finding that Petitioner is "more likely than not" to be tortured if returned
to El Salvador. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Accordingly, Petitioner is not eligible
for protection under CAT.
PETITION DENIED.
3