Jesus Rolando Acevedo Gonzalez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JESUS ROLANDO ACEVEDO
GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73663
Agency No. A200-691-682
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Rolando Acevedo Gonzalez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
FILED
DEC 28 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-73663 2
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and
review de novo the agency’s legal determinations. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542
F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Gonzalez failed to meet his burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing
evidence that his asylum application was filed within one year of his arrival in the
United States, or that his late filing should be excused. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B), (D).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the injuries
Gonzalez sustained during military service were not on account of a protected
ground, and that his father’s death was a casualty of war. See Parussimova v.
Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a
protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s
persecution”). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that the
threats Gonzalez allegedly received did not constitute persecution. See Lim v. INS,
224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s conclusion that Gonzalez failed to show that individuals who fought in the
Salvadoran army during the civil war are being targeted for harm. See Zetino v.

-- 2 of 3 --

11-73663 3
Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.2010); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012,
1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution is too speculative).
Accordingly, his withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection
because Gonzalez failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiesce of a public official in El Salvador. See
Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 748.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --