Walter Orlando Mancia Guerrero v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER ORLANDO MANCIA
GUERRERO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74379
Agency No. A095-731-757
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Walter Orlando Mancia Guerrero, 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
* 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).
FILED
MAR 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-74379
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mancia
Guerrero failed to establish he was persecuted or that it is more likely than not he
would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v.
Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (under the REAL ID Act, applicant
must prove that a protected ground is at least ‘one central reason’ for persecution);
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (“since the statute makes motive
critical, he must provide some evidence of it, direct or circumstantial”) (emphasis
in original). Thus, Mancia Guerrero’s withholding of removal claim fails. See
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Mancia Guerrero’s
CAT claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in El Salvador.
See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. We reject his contention that the BIA did not
consider his claim properly.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --