Jose Melgar v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 586 F. App'x 315 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE WALTER MELGAR, No. 12-72209
Petitioner, Agency No. A029-136-724
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Walter Melgar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se 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 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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the factual
findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we
deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Melgar filed his asylum
application within a reasonable period after the changed circumstances. See
Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2008) (364-day delay
without explanation was unreasonable). Thus, Melgar’s asylum claim fails.
Melgar contends the deaths of his brother and cousin establish a clear
probability that he would be persecuted if removed to El Salvador. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s determination that Melgar did not establish it is
more likely than not that he will be persecuted on account of a protected ground.
See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that a desire to
be free from violence bears no nexus to a protected ground); Nahrvani v. Gonzales,
399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (finding no fear of future persecution where
petitioner’s claim is unsubstantiated and speculative). Thus, Melgar’s withholding
of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT
protection, because Melgar failed to show that it is more likely than not he would
2 12-72209
be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if removed to El
Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-72209