NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GASTON PONCE-SALAZAR, AKA No. 15-71770 Gaston Salazar Ponce,

Agency No. A088-659-307

Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 17, 2021** Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Gaston Ponce-Salazar, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

*

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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Ponce-Salazar established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5). Thus, Ponce-Salazar’s asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ponce-Salazar failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Ponce-Salazar’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Ponce-Salazar 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 Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2