Begnove Vasquez-Garcia v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BEGNOVE VASQUEZ-GARCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73258
Agency No. A089-853-916
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Begnove Vasquez-Garcia, 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 Convention Against Torture
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAY 31 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 12-73258
(“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.
Vasquez-Garcia does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination
that his asylum application was time-barred. 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 deemed waived). Thus, we deny his petition for review
as to his asylum claim, including his humanitarian asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Vasquez-
Garcia’s experiences in El Salvador did not rise to the level of persecution. See
Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Prasad v. INS,
47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although a reasonable factfinder could have
found this incident sufficient to establish past persecution, we do not believe that a
factfinder would be compelled to do so.”) (emphasis in original). Substantial
evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Vasquez-Garcia failed to
demonstrate it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted in El Salvador.
See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future
persecution too speculative); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 12-73258
2003) (to qualify for withholding of removal, petitioner must show that it is more
probable than not that he would suffer future persecution). Thus, Vasquez-
Garcia’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Vasquez-
Garcia’s CAT claim because he failed to show it is more likely than not that he
will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El
Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --