FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 6 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NELSON ADALBERTO DIAZ No. 08-73262
BENITEZ,
Agency No. A094-146-476
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Nelson Adalberto Diaz Benitez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We
deny the petition for review.
Diaz Benitez does not raise any challenge to the agency’s dispositive finding
that he is ineligible for asylum due to his conviction for rape. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically
raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the
petition as to his asylum claim.
Diaz Benitez contends he qualifies for withholding of removal on account of
imputed political opinion and membership in two social groups. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s finding that Diaz Benitez did not demonstrate past
persecution because the attacks on his uncle and brother were not tied to him. See
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060 (murder of friend and associate were not “part of a
pattern of persecution closely tied to” petitioner) (internal quotation and citation
omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Diaz
Benitez has not demonstrated a clear probability of persecution. See INS v.
Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987) (clear probability standard requires
alien “to establish by objective evidence that it is more likely than not that he or
she will be subject to persecution upon deportation”); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d
2 08-73262
1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner’s fear not objectively reasonable under
circumstances of case). Accordingly, Diaz Benitez’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Diaz Benitez failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be
tortured at the instigation or with the acquiescence of the Salvadoran government.
See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-73262