Milton Antonio Guerra- Morales v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MILTON ANTONIO GUERRA-
MORALES,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72885
Agency No. A099-479-140
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Milton Antonio Guerra-Morales, 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
FILED
JUN 30 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 2 --

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition
for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Guerra-Morales established
the government of El Salvador was or would be unable or unwilling to protect him.
See id. (an applicant for asylum and withholding of removal bears the burden of
establishing that the government would be unwilling or unable to control private
actors); see also Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005).
(record does not compel a contrary conclusion where police investigated reports of
mistreatment but were unable to solve crimes). Thus, we deny the petition as to
Guerra-Morales’s asylum and withholding of removal claims.
Guerra-Morales does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his CAT claim. 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-72885 2

-- 2 of 2 --