MARIO CAVINAL VILLATORO V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 12-70267 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAY 21 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIO CAVINAL VILLATORO, Petitioner, No. 12-70267 Agency No. A096-493-797 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2015** Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Mario Cavinal Villatoro, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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 * 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review. In rejecting Villatoro’s asylum claim on nexus grounds, the BIA found Villatoro did not establish an imputed political opinion resulting from his resistance to extortion demands, and it rejected his claimed “whistle-blower” status. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s findings. See INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”). Thus, Villatoro’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Finally, Villatoro does not challenge the BIA’s rejection of his social group and CAT claims. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 12-70267

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.