ALFREDO MORENO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 14-71132 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 18 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALFREDO MORENO, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-71132 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-720-231 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 10, 2015** Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Alfredo Moreno, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, * 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). withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review. The agency found Moreno statutorily ineligible for asylum, due to a conviction for an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii). Moreno does not challenge this finding. Thus, we deny the petition as to Moreno’s asylum claim. With respect to withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Moreno failed to establish any past or future harm was or would be based on a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010); 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, Moreno’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Moreno failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador if returned. 2 14-71132 See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). Finally, we reject Moreno’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process challenge). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 14-71132
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.
