FRANCISCO MURCIA-NAJARRO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-73983 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 15 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCO MURCIA-NAJARRO, AKA Francisco Murcia, No. 11-73983 Agency No. A095-013-224 Petitioner, 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. Francisco Murcia-Najarro, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions 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 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Murcia-Najarro’s untimely asylum application was filed within a reasonable period of time from the denial of his application for temporary protected status. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5); Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2008) (application filed 22 months after expiration of lawful nonimmigrant status was not reasonable). Thus, MurciaNajarro’s asylum claim fails. Murcia-Najarro does not contend he suffered past persecution. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Murcia-Najarro failed to establish the government of El Salvador is unable or unwilling to control the people he fears. See Truong v. Holder, 613 F.3d 938, 941-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel finding petitioner faced persecution by the government or forces the government was unwilling or unable to control). Thus, Murcia-Najarro’s withholding of removal claim fails. Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of MurciaNajarro’s CAT claim because he failed to show that it is more likely than not that 2 11-73983 he 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). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 11-73983
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.
