Filomeno Torres v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILOMENO TORRES,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73223
Agency No. A095-785-923
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Filomeno Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
SEP 04 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Torres failed to
establish a clear probability of future persecution on account of his political
opinion, membership in a particular social group, or other protected ground. See
Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003) (record did not compel a
finding of a clear probability of future persecution); see also Parussimova v.
Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a
protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s
persecution”). Thus, we deny Torres’ petition as to his withholding of removal
claim.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Torres failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, we deny Torres’ petition as
to his CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-73223 2

-- 2 of 2 --