Wendi Marisol Tejada-Ramirez; Cesar Osmin Alfaro-Tejada v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WENDI MARISOL TEJADA-RAMIREZ;
CESAR OSMIN ALFARO-TEJADA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71460
Agency Nos. A094-917-169
A094-917-170
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 1, 2013**
Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Wendi Marisol Tejada-Ramirez and Cesar Osmin Alfaro-Tejada, natives and
citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
FILED
AUG 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71460 2
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusions that Petitioners did not
experience past persecution and that their fear of future harm is too speculative to
succeed. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus,
Petitioners are not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal.
Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief because
Petitioners failed to establish that it is more likely than not that they would be
tortured if they return to El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073
(9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --