Luis Manuel Aguilar v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS MANUEL AGUILAR,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73034
Agency No. A076-611-256
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Luis Manuel Aguilar, 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
DEC 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual finding, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008),
and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Aguilar applied for asylum
within a reasonable period of time after any changed or extraordinary
circumstances as to excuse his untimely filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Al
Ramahi v. Holder, 725 F.3d 1133, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2013) (delay in filing was not
reasonable under all the circumstances). Thus, we deny the petition for review as
to Aguilar’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Aguilar failed to
establish past persecution or that it is more likely than not he would be persecuted
on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734,
740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (applicant must prove a protected ground was or would be
‘at least one central reason’ for persecution); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012,
1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (record did not compel finding that petitioner who was
“teased, bothered, discriminated against and harassed” experienced persecution).
Thus, we deny the petition as to Aguilar’s withholding of removal claim.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Aguilar’s
CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be
13-73034 2

-- 2 of 3 --

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-73034 3

-- 3 of 3 --