Jose Isabel Castillo-Rodas v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ISABEL CASTILLO-RODAS,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73072
Agency No. A098-762-773
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Isabel Castillo-Rodas, 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 and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-73072
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.
2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Castillo-Rodas
failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be persecuted if returned to El
Salvador. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of
future persecution in Ukraine too speculative). Contrary to Castillo-Rodas’s
contentions, the BIA did not err in declining to reach his arguments as to nexus or
relocation. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus,
Castillo-Rodas’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Castillo-Rodas failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured with
the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d
1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (evidence did not compel conclusion that petitioner
established the state action necessary for CAT relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --