VICTOR ALFONSO MARTINEZ-SALAS, AKA Victor Alfonso Martinez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR ALFONSO MARTINEZ-SALAS,
AKA Victor Alfonso Martinez,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73746
Agency No. A205-714-127
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Victor Alfonso Martinez-Salas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
withholding of removal and relief 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
JUL 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-73746
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). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Martinez-
Salas failed to establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an extreme
concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as
offensive” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); see also Duran-
Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did not compel
the conclusion that threats rose to the level of persecution). Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s determination that Martinez-Salas failed to establish a
clear probability of future persecution in Mexico. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d
1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future persecution was not objectively
reasonable).
We do not reach Martinez-Salas’s contentions as to the cognizability of his
proposed particular social group. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986
(9th Cir. 2010) (the court’s review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by
the BIA).
Thus, Martinez-Salas’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-73746
Martinez-Salas failed to show it is more likely than not he would 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).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --