Kevin Josue Chicas-Marenco v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN JOSUE CHICAS-MARENCO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70898
Agency No. A201-103-668
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Kevin Josue Chicas-Marenco, 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 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
AUG 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-70898
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d
1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Chicas-Marenco
failed to demonstrate a protected ground was or will be a central reason for the
mistreatment he fears from gang members. Id. at 1015; 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, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Zetino,
622 F.3d at 1015-16.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Chicas-Marenco failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured
by the government of El Salvador, or with its consent or acquiescence. Garcia-
Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --