JORGE DIAZ-MARTINEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 11-72339 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORGE ALBERTO DIAZ-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, No. 11-72339 Agency No. A094-789-427 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 22, 2015** Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Jorge Alberto Diaz-Martinez, 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 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, Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Diaz-Martinez established the government of El Salvador is unwilling or unable to control the street gangs he fears. See id. at 920 (an applicant for asylum and withholding of removal bears the burden of establishing that the government would be unwilling or unable to prevent his persecution); see also Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (record does not compel a contrary conclusion where “reasonable minds could differ”). Thus, Diaz-Martinez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because DiazMartinez did not establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by the government of El Salvador or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 11-72339

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.