CARLOS ERNESTO GONZALEZ, AKA Carlos Gonzalez, AKA Carlos E. Gonzalez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ERNESTO GONZALEZ, AKA
Carlos Gonzalez, AKA Carlos E. Gonzalez,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72044
Agency No. A094-304-182
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 7, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Ernesto Gonzalez, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-72044
Gonzalez only seeks review of the claim for CAT relief. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.
We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163,
1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s
interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft,
371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006).
The agency did not fail to consider evidence relevant to the possibility of
future torture. See Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 508-09 (9th Cir. 2013)
(agency has duty to consider all relevant evidence, and failure to do so requires
remand). Nor did it adopt impermissibly narrow limitations on what might
constitute governmental acquiescence to torture. Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales,
458 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2006) (remanding when agency used incorrect legal
standard). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Gonzalez failed to 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
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture); Garcia-Milian v.
Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (failure to establish the necessary

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-72044
“state action” for CAT relief). Thus, the claim for CAT relief fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --