UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1852
LUIS ERNESTO CASTILLO-PENA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: October 2, 2012 Decided: October 9, 2012
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Luis Ernesto Castillo-Pena, Petitioner Pro Se. Aimee J.
Carmichael, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Luis Ernesto Castillo-Pena, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum,
withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.
Castillo-Pena contends that the Board erred in denying
his motion for a second extension of time in which to file his
brief. The Board has the discretion to extend the time for a
party to file a brief upon the party’s motion. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.3(c)(1) (2012). Castillo-Pena was warned that generally
the Board only gives one extension. He was further warned that
if he received one extension, he was to assume he would not get
another. We conclude the Board did not abuse its discretion in
denying Castillo-Pena’s second motion for an extension after it
had already granted him an extension. He failed to show
extraordinary circumstances that would warrant additional time
to file his brief.
Castillo-Pena also challenges the denial of his
application for CAT relief. He contends the immigration judge
erred in finding that he failed to show it was more likely than
not that he will be tortured or killed by police because of his
tattoos.
2
To qualify for protection under the CAT, a petitioner
bears the burden of showing that “it is more likely than not
that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed
country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2012). To state
a prima facie case for relief under the CAT, a petitioner must
show that he will be subject to “severe pain or suffering,
whether physical or mental . . . by or at the instigation of or
with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other
person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.18(a)(1) (2012); see Saintha v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 243,
246 & n.2 (4th Cir. 2008). “A public official acquiesces to
torture if, ‘prior to the activity constituting torture, [the
official] ha[s] awareness of such activity and thereafter
breach[es] his or her legal responsibility to intervene to
prevent such activity.’” Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440, 449
(4th Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(7)). The
applicant need not prove the torture would be inflicted on
account of a protected ground. Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d
113, 116 (4th Cir. 2011).
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Castillo-Pena failed in his burden of proof. There
was insufficient evidence in support of his claim that he will
be tortured because of his tattoos.
3
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
4