Pedro Mejia Tovar 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PEDRO MEJIA TOVAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73005
Agency No. A200-247-102
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Mejia Tovar, 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
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JUL 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-73005 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings, Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir. 2000), and we review de novo
due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.
2003). We deny the petition for review.
Mejia Tovar does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his
application for asylum was untimely.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Mejia Tovar failed to
establish past persecution based on the threats he received, the shooting incident,
and the incident with the grenade. See Lim, 224 F.3d at 936; Hoxha v. Ashcroft,
319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner failed to present evidence that
compelled a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the
finding that Mejia Tovar failed to demonstrate a clear probability of future harm
because there is no evidence that anyone is still looking for him. See Nagoulko v.
INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (future fear was speculative).
Accordingly, Mejia Tovar’s withholding of removal claim fails.
In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Mejia Tovar failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be
tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Silaya
v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

-- 2 of 3 --

12-73005 3
Finally, Mejia Tovar claims he was denied due process because the agency
failed to give him time to provide supplementary supporting documents and failed
to consider the evidence he submitted. This claim fails because he has not shown
how the documents he submitted or wanted to submit would have affected the
outcome. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must
show prejudice to establish a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --