LUIS PENA RIVAS V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-73245 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 22 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS ALONSO PENA RIVAS, Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-73245 Agency No. A094-448-458 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Luis Alonso Pena Rivas, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Pena Rivas established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Thus, we deny the petition as to his asylum claim. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pena Rivas’ experiences in El Salvador did not rise to the level of persecution, see Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1016-17; see also Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding unfulfilled threats generally do not constitute past persecution), and that he did not establish that future persecution is more likely than not to occur in El Salvador, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(3)(i); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001), superseded by statute on other grounds. Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails. Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Pena Rivas’ CAT claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government or other public 2 14-73245 official if returned to El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 14-73245
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.
