NOE DE JESUS LOPEZ, AKA Noel Lopez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOE DE JESUS LOPEZ, AKA Noel
Lopez,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72800
Agency No. A088-666-220
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Noe De Jesus Lopez, 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
JUL 31 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008),
and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lopez failed
to establish the government is unable or unwilling to control the individuals he
fears. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did
not compel finding petitioner faced persecution by forces the government was
unwilling or unable to control); see also Truong v. Holder, 613 F.3d 938, 941-42
(9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (same). Thus, Lopez’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Lopez’s CAT
claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
Finally, we reject Lopez’s request to remand for the potential exercise of
prosecutorial discretion, and we lack jurisdiction to direct respondent to consider
an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, see Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642,
644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-72800

-- 2 of 2 --