Francisco Murcia-Najarro v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 588 F. App'x 613 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 15 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO MURCIA-NAJARRO, No. 11-73983
AKA Francisco Murcia,
Agency No. A095-013-224
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Murcia-Najarro, 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 asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief 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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Murcia-Najarro’s untimely
asylum application was filed within a reasonable period of time from the denial of
his application for temporary protected status. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5); Dhital
v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2008) (application filed 22 months after
expiration of lawful nonimmigrant status was not reasonable). Thus, Murcia-
Najarro’s asylum claim fails.
Murcia-Najarro does not contend he suffered past persecution. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s determination that Murcia-Najarro failed to
establish the government of El Salvador is unable or unwilling to control the
people he fears. See Truong v. Holder, 613 F.3d 938, 941-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (per
curiam); Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did
not compel finding petitioner faced persecution by the government or forces the
government was unwilling or unable to control). Thus, Murcia-Najarro’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Murcia-
Najarro’s CAT claim because he failed to show that it is more likely than not that
2 11-73983
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.
3 11-73983