Jose Jaime Escalante 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).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE JAIME ESCALANTE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71975
Agency No. A077-761-002
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Jaime Escalante, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
FILED
FEB 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JT/Research 07-71975 2
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko
v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
Even if Escalante testified credibly, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s denial of Escalante’s asylum claim because the threats made against him
did not rise to the level of persecution, see Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.
2000), and he failed to demonstrate that his fear of returning to El Salvador is
objectively reasonable, see Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018.
Because Escalante failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Escalante failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he
returns to El Salvador. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.
2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --