Hugo Ernesto Castillo-Mancia v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUGO ERNESTO CASTILLO-MANCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72753
Agency No. A206-808-606
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 6, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: MURGUIA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and GUIROLA,*** District
Judge.
Hugo Ernesto Castillo-Mancia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing an appeal
* 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).
*** The Honorable Louis Guirola, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Mississippi, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 5 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
from the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny Castillo-Mancia’s petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the determinations of the IJ and BIA that
Castillo-Mancia failed to establish that any harm he experienced in El Salvador was
on account of a protected ground. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th
Cir. 2014). In addition, substantial evidence supports the finding that Castillo-
Mancia failed to demonstrate that he faces future harm in El Salvador. See Zetino
v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A] desire to be free from
harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members
bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). The application for asylum and
withholding of removal was therefore appropriately denied.
2. Castillo-Mancia has not demonstrated that he would more likely than not
suffer torture upon return to El Salvador. The agency’s decision that Castillo-
Mancia failed to show that he is entitled to CAT protection is therefore also
supported by substantial evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --