Gustavo Molina v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUSTAVO MOLINA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70478
Agency No. A075-533-935
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Gustavo Molina, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
* 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).
FILED
JUL 1 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-70478
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Molina demonstrated
extraordinary circumstances, or that he filed his asylum application within a
reasonable period of time after changed circumstances, to excuse the late filing of
his application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Husyev v. Mukasey,
528 F.3d 1172, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2008) (364-day delay in filing asylum application
after non-immigrant status expired was not a reasonable period). Thus, we deny
the petition as to Molina’s asylum claim.
Molina rests his claims of past persecution and future fear on his father’s
military service in El Salvador. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
finding that Molina’s experiences in El Salvador did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60 (mistreatment, including two
beatings, did not compel finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s finding that Molina failed to establish it is more likely than
not that he would face future persecution in El Salvador. See Nagoulko v. INS,
333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution too
speculative). Thus, Molina’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Molina’s CAT

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-70478
claim because he failed to show that it is more likely than not that 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). Thus, we
deny the petition as to Molina’s CAT claim.
Finally, we reject Molina’s contention that the BIA’s decision was
insufficient. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency
need not “write an exegesis on every contention”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --