
    Hirvyn Emerson RODRIGUEZ-PEREZ, aka Hirvyn Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70715
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 10, 2016  Pasadena, California
    Filed November 15, 2016
    
      Javier Lopez-Perez, Lopez Perez Law Center, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Siu P. Wong, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Stefanie N. Hennes, Trial Attorney, OIL, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, Chief District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
    
      
       The Honorable William E. Smith, United States Chief District Judge the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.
    
   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.
     