Hugo Alexander Ceren 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HUGO ALEXANDER CEREN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73315
Agency No. A073-956-722
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Hugo Alexander Ceren, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
OCT 31 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 10-73315
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, and we review de novo the agency’s legal
determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We
deny the petition for review.
Ceren does not contend he suffered past persecution but fears he will be
harmed by the descendants of guerrillas he believes killed his grandfather and
uncle. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Ceren failed to
establish it is more likely than not he will be harmed on account of an imputed
political opinion. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005)
(“[T]he record provides no evidence [that the people petitioner feared] imputed
political beliefs to [the petitioner].”); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d
734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground
represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”).
Accordingly, Ceren’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Ceren failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured upon return
to El Salvador. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747-48 (9th Cir.
2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --