Oscar Antonio Landaverde v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR ANTONIO LANDAVERDE,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74325
Agency No. A029-279-180
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Antonio Landaverde’s opposed motion to hold proceedings in
abeyance is denied.
Landaverde, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
* 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
NOV 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-74325
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the
petition for review.
We do not consider the materials Landaverde references in his opening brief
that are not part of the administrative record before the BIA. See Fisher v. INS, 79
F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the
administrative record).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Landaverde’s CAT claim
because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in El Salvador. See Zheng v.
Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (record did not compel reversal
where “claims of possible torture remain speculative[]”). We reject Landaverde’s
contentions that the agency erred in analyzing his claim, and failed to consider
evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --