NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TOMAS MEJIA, AKA Tomas Mejia No. 15-71538
Cardoza,
Agency No. A094-303-784
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK P. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 2, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, KOH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Tomas Mejia, 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 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
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 agency’s determination that Mejia failed to
file his asylum application within a reasonable period after losing Temporary
Protected Status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Al
Ramahi v. Holder, 725 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2013) (reviewing “reasonable
period” determination for substantial evidence). Thus, Mejia’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Mejia failed to
establish he experienced past harm that rises to the level of persecution, see
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is an extreme
concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as
offensive), or a clear probability of future persecution in El Salvador, see Lanza v.
Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner’s evidence did not show
clear probability of future persecution). Thus, Mejia’s withholding of removal
claim fails.
The agency’s denial of CAT protection is also supported by substantial
evidence because Mejia failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
2 15-71538
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-71538