Manuel De Jesus Orellana Tobar, aka JOSE DE JESUS ORELLANA TOBAR v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL DE JESUS ORELLANA
TOBAR, aka JOSE DE JESUS
ORELLANA TOBAR,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72737
Agency No. A078-338-109
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 8, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON and BEA, Circuit Judges and EATON**
Petitioner Manuel de Jesus Orellana Tobar (Tobar) petitions for review of a
final order of removal. Tobar asserts that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
FILED
JAN 10 2017
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.
** Richard K. Eaton, Judge of the United States Court of International
Trade, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

erred by denying his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of relief. See Garcia-Milian
v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2013) (reviewing for substantial
evidence).1 The BIA agreed with the determination of the Immigration Judge (IJ)
that Tobar’s claim lacked a nexus to a protected ground. Tobar failed to establish a
connection between his asserted persecution and his status as an imputed
whistleblower.2 Tobar offered only his association with Sergeant Carrillo and the
threat that he would meet “the same end as the Sergeant,” who was going to testify
regarding certain high-profile kidnappings. However, there was scant evidence
that any testimony from Carrillo would have implicated the government rather than
rogue police officers.
The BIA’s failure to cite to the El Salvador Country Report (Country
Report) in its denial of CAT relief does not warrant a remand. Absent specific
1Tobar asserts that the BIA purported to affirm a nonexistent adverse
credibility determination. However, because the BIA denied relief on the merits
we do not reach the credibility issue.
2The government asserts that Tobar failed to exhaust this claim before the
BIA. Although Tobar did not use the term “whistleblower,” the facts supporting
this claim were sufficiently presented.
Page 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

evidence to the contrary, we presume that the BIA considered all evidence
presented. See Larita-Martinez v. I.N.S., 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION DENIED.
Page 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --