KEVIN CHICAS-MARENCO V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-70898 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 2 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEVIN JOSUE CHICAS-MARENCO, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-70898 Agency No. A201-103-668 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Kevin Josue Chicas-Marenco, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 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. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Chicas-Marenco failed to demonstrate a protected ground was or will be a central reason for the mistreatment he fears from gang members. Id. at 1015; see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Thus, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1015-16. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Chicas-Marenco failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by the government of El Salvador, or with its consent or acquiescence. GarciaMilian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-70898

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.