NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICTOR ALFONSO MARTINEZ-SALAS, No. 15-73746 AKA Victor Alfonso Martinez,

Agency No. A205-714-127

Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2022** Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Victor Alfonso Martinez-Salas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for 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). 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). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Martinez- Salas failed to establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); see also Duran- Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did not compel the conclusion that threats rose to the level of persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Martinez-Salas failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution in Mexico. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable).

We do not reach Martinez-Salas’s contentions as to the cognizability of his proposed particular social group. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court’s review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA).

Thus, Martinez-Salas’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

2 15-73746 Martinez-Salas failed to show it is more likely than not he would 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).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 15-73746