Luis Alonso Pena Rivas v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ALONSO PENA RIVAS,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73245
Agency No. A094-448-458
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Luis Alonso Pena Rivas, 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
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-73245
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003),
and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Pena Rivas established
changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum
application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Thus, we deny the petition as to
his asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pena Rivas’
experiences in El Salvador did not rise to the level of persecution, see Nagoulko,
333 F.3d at 1016-17; see also Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000)
(finding unfulfilled threats generally do not constitute past persecution), and that
he did not establish that future persecution is more likely than not to occur in El
Salvador, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(3)(i); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th
Cir. 2001), superseded by statute on other grounds. Thus, his withholding of
removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Pena Rivas’
CAT claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government or other public

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-73245
official if returned to El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073
(9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --