Jose Mercedes Rios-Flores v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MERCEDES RIOS-FLORES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72876
Agency No. A094-371-830
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Mercedes Rios-Flores, 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 withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
APR 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-72876 2
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), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the beating and
subsequent threat Rios-Flores suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. See
Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (beating and repeated
threats of harm or death were not “so severe as to compel a finding of past
persecution”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
Rios-Flores did not establish a clear probability of future persecution. See
Canales-Vargas v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 739, 747 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding that
threats received thirteen years prior did not establish clear probability of future
persecution). Accordingly, Rios-Flores’ withholding of removal claim fails.
In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Rios-Flores failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured
upon return to El Salvador. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
Finally, we decline to consider the new evidence Rios-Flores references in
his opening brief because our review of the BIA’s order is limited to the
administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en
banc).

-- 2 of 3 --

08-72876 3
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --