Manuel Salvador Torres-Perez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL SALVADOR TORRES-PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71035
Agency No. A205-970-595
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 30, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Manuel Salvador Torres-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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
MAY 5 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-71035
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions
of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the
extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes
and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Torres-Perez
failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a cognizable particular
social group or any other protected ground.1 See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,
1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that an applicant’s “desire to be free from
harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members
bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Torres-Perez’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Torres-Perez failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
1 Torres-Perez does not challenge the agency’s determination that he did not
demonstrate changed or extraordinary circumstances sufficient to excuse his
untimely asylum application.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-71035
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --