Julio Cesar Flores Quintanilla v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIO CESAR FLORES QUINTANILLA,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70635
Agency No. A073-915-414
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Julio Cesar Flores Quintanilla, 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 applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
FEB 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-70635
(“CAT”). We have 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), and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Flores
Quintanilla failed to establish past persecution in El Salvador. See Lim v. INS, 224
F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone . . . constitute past
persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so
menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.”) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Flores
Quintanilla failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future
persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Flores Quintanilla’s asylum claim fails.
Additionally, because Flores Quintanilla did not establish eligibility for asylum, his
withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Flores Quintanilla’s CAT
claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured
if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir.
2009) (stating standard).
Flores Quintanilla does not challenge the agency’s determinations regarding

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-70635
the additional evidence he submitted on appeal. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94
F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived).
As stated in the court’s March 17, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --