Moises Velasquez-Medina v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOISES VELASQUEZ-MEDINA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70281
Agency No. A088-892-353
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Moises Velasquez-Medina, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
* 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).
FILED
OCT 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-70281
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zhao v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1027, 1030
(9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even if credible,
Velasquez-Medina failed to establish past persecution or a clear probability of
future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622
F.3d 1007, 1015-1016 (9th Cir. 2010); 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”). We reject
Velasquez-Medina’s contention that the agency decisions do not provide adequate
reasoning to allow a meaningful review. Thus, Velasquez-Medina’s withholding
of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --