Carlos Humberto De La Roca v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS HUMBERTO DE LA ROCA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71424
Agency No. A092-294-108
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Humberto de la Roca, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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
* 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
DEC 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-71424
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Even if credible, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
de la Roca failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on
account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740
(9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one
central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). We reject de la Roca’s
contention that the agency inadequately addressed his claim. Thus, de la Roca’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d
1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of de la Roca’s
CAT claim because the record does not compel a finding that it is more likely than
not he would be tortured by the government or with its consent or acquiescence
upon his return to Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th
Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --