Jose Orellana Coto v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ORELLANA COTO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74098
Agency No. A094-454-080
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Orellana Coto, 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 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
MAR 25 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-74098
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.
2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that even if Orellana
Coto was credible, he failed to establish past persecution or a clear probability of
future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v.
Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009) (under the REAL ID Act, “to
demonstrate that a protected ground was ‘at least one central reason’ for
persecution, an applicant must prove that such ground was a cause of the
persecutors’ acts”). Thus, Orellana Coto’s withholding of removal claim fails.
See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Orellana Coto’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 the government if returned to El
Salvador. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. We reject Orellana Coto’s contention
that the BIA did not consider his claim properly.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --