Victor Manuel Calles 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
VICTOR MANUEL CALLES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70073
Agency No. A094-151-323
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 21, 2011**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Victor Manuel Calles, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions 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
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
NOV 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 11-70073
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 review de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS,
210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Calles failed to
establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of a protected
ground. See Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Asylum generally
is not available to victims of civil strife, unless they are singled out on account of a
protected ground.”); Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005)
(“[T]he record provides no evidence [that the people petitioner feared] imputed
political beliefs to [petitioner].”). Accordingly, in the absence of a nexus to a
protected ground, Calles’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Ochoa, 406 F.3d at 1172.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s findings that Calles was not
tortured in the past, and that Calles failed to establish it is more likely than not that
he would be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to El Salvador. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747-48 (9th
Cir. 2008). Accordingly, Calles’ CAT claim fails.
Finally, we reject Calles’ due process contention that the agency erred in

-- 2 of 3 --

3 11-70073
failing to provide a reasoned explanation for denying his asylum claim because it is
belied by the record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --