Ismael Aguirre Sanchez v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Ismael Aguirre Sanchez v. Loretta E. Lynch

644 F. App'x 734

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 4, 2016

Docket13-71563

StatusUnpublished

This text of 644 F. App'x 734 (Ismael Aguirre Sanchez v. Loretta E. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ismael Aguirre Sanchez v. Loretta E. Lynch, 644 F. App'x 734 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Ismael Santiago Aguirre-Sanchez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact. Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Aguirre-Sanchez established that his past harms were committed by a group that the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to control. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.2005) (failure to report non-governmental persecution due to belief that police would do nothing did not establish that government was unable or unwilling to control.persecutors based on the record in the case); see also Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2005) (record does not compel a contrary conclusion where “reasonable. minds could differ”). We reject Aguirre-Sanchez’s contention that the agency ignored his testimony in reaching its conclusion. In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even acknowledging Aguirre-Sanchez’s heightened risk of harm, he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted by gang members if returned to El Salvador. See Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 934-35 (9th Cir.2004); see also Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1066 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence did not compel a finding that it was more likely than not petitioner would be persecuted). Thus, we deny the petition as to Aguirre-Sanchez’s withholding of removal claim.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Aguirre-Sanchez’s CAT claim because he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th.Cir.2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Ismael Santiago Aguirre-Sanchez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact. Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Aguirre-Sanchez established that his past harms were committed by a group that the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to control. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.2005) (failure to report non-governmental persecution due to belief that police would do nothing did not establish that government was unable or unwilling to control.persecutors based on the record in the case); see also Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2005) (record does not compel a contrary conclusion where “reasonable. minds could differ”). We reject Aguirre-Sanchez’s contention that the agency ignored his testimony in reaching its conclusion. In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even acknowledging Aguirre-Sanchez’s heightened risk of harm, he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted by gang members if returned to El Salvador. See Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 934-35 (9th Cir.2004); see also Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1066 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence did not compel a finding that it was more likely than not petitioner would be persecuted). Thus, we deny the petition as to Aguirre-Sanchez’s withholding of removal claim.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Aguirre-Sanchez’s CAT claim because he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th.Cir.2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

644 F. App'x 734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ismael-aguirre-sanchez-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack