FELIX VENTURA-DE NERIO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-71321 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED DEC 18 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FELIX VENTURA-DE NERIO; KRISSIA YAHMILET NERIO-VENTURA; WILLIAM ALEXANDER NERIOVENTURA, No. 11-71321 Agency Nos. A094-932-948 A094-932-949 A094-932-951 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM* v. 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. Felix Ventura-De Nerio, Krissia Yahmilet Nerio-Ventura, and William Alexander Nerio-Ventura, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their 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). immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, 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 factual findings, Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the finding that the government of El Salvador was or would be unwilling or unable to control the individuals petitioners fear. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005). The record does not support petitioners’ contention that the agency failed to consider evidence or engaged in speculation. Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of petitioners’ CAT claims because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they 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). The record does not support petitioners’ contention that the agency engaged in speculation or failed to consider their CAT claims properly. Finally, we reject petitioners’ 2 11-71321 contention that the background documents compel reversal of the agency’s CAT determination. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 11-71321
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
