Martin Brito 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARTIN BRITO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70263
Agency No. A094-461-353
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Martin Brito, 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 and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
FILED
SEP 27 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-70263 2
the agency’s factual findings, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.
2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Brito filed his asylum
application within a reasonable period after withdrawal of his temporary protected
status. See id. at 1181-82. Thus, we deny the petition as to his asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Brito failed to
establish the incident he experienced in El Salvador rose to the level of
persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1995) (single
incident of detention and beating did not compel finding of past persecution).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Brito failed to meet his
burden of proof for withholding of removal because he did not show it is more
likely than not he will be persecuted in El Salvador. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333
F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative).
Thus, we deny the petition as to his withholding of removal claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --