22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4ec,MEMORANDUM Hirvyn Emerson Rodriguez-Perez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition. 1. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a). See Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448 (9th Cir. 2012). 2. Nothing in the record compels a conclusion contrary to that of the Immigration Judge. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(B) (“[Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary....”); Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). Rodriguez’s suggestion that the Immigration Judge failed to give appropriate consideration to evidence that Rodriguez would be beaten or killed upon returning to El Salvador is without merit as the Immigration Judge specifically took such evidence into account. Decision of the Immigration Judge, p.10. Rodriguez’s own expert witness opined that, after the gang truce in El Salvador, overall violence, in-eluding beatings and killings, has gone down. The petition for review is DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T51e,

MEMORANDUM

Hirvyn Emerson Rodriguez-Perez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition.

1. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a). See Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448 (9th Cir. 2012).

2. Nothing in the record compels a conclusion contrary to that of the Immigration Judge. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(B) (“[Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary....”); Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). Rodriguez’s suggestion that the Immigration Judge failed to give appropriate consideration to evidence that Rodriguez would be beaten or killed upon returning to El Salvador is without merit as the Immigration Judge specifically took such evidence into account. Decision of the Immigration Judge, p.10. Rodriguez’s own expert witness opined that, after the gang truce in El Salvador, overall violence, in-eluding beatings and killings, has gone down.

The petition for review is DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.