Rigoberto Lopez Orellana v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RIGOBERTO LOPEZ ORELLANA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70216
Agency No. A094-307-408
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
On March 23, 2015, the court granted the respondent’s unopposed motion to
stay proceedings. On April 21, 2015, the respondent informed the court that
Rigoberto Lopez Orellana is not a candidate for prosecutorial discretion, and
requested that this case move forward. The stay of proceedings is hereby lifted.
FILED
MAY 21 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Lopez Orellana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a
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 have jurisdiction
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), and we
deny the petition for review.
Lopez Orellana contends he suffered past persecution and will be targeted
for harm on account of his membership in a particular social group of Salvadoran
males whose family members have served in the military. Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s determination that Lopez Orellana’s experiences with the
military, guerrillas, and gang members in El Salvador did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc)
(explaining that persecution is “an extreme concept”). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s determination that he failed to establish a fear of future
persecution on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555
F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground
represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); see also
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’s “desire to be
13-70216 2

-- 2 of 3 --

free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang
members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Lopez Orellana’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail.
Finally, Lopez Orellana does not raise any substantive arguments
challenging the agency’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,
94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed
waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-70216 3

-- 3 of 3 --