William Rivera 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM RIVERA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73339
Agency No. A200-052-064
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
William Rivera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
SEP 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73339 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992), and de novo due
process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Rivera failed to
demonstrate he suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future
persecution on account of a protected ground. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483.
Because Rivera failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it
follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Rivera has not established that any torture he may suffer would be by or with the
acquiescence of the Salvadoran government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
We reject Rivera’s due process claim because he has not shown how he has
been prejudiced by any error. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2006) (petitioner must show error and prejudice to establish a due process
violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --