JOSE SEBASTIAN LOPEZ, AKA Jose Lopez Pineda v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE SEBASTIAN LOPEZ, AKA Jose
Lopez Pineda,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71014
Agency No. A095-000-280
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Sebastian Lopez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for
review of a 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
FILED
MAY 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070
(9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Even if Lopez established an exception to excuse his untimely asylum
application, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that he failed to
establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution in El Salvador on account
of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)
(petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft . . .
bears no nexus to a protected ground”); 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,
Lopez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief, because
Lopez did not show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Silaya,
524 F.3d at 1073.
Finally, we reject Lopez’s due process contention. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
11-71014 2

-- 2 of 3 --

1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-71014 3

-- 3 of 3 --