Sedin KESKO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent, 543 F. App'x 714

MEMORANDUM Sedin Kesko petitions for review of a final order of removal on the ground that the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) erred in finding that Kesko failed to establish a clear probability of torture to warrant deferral of his removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The standard of review is dispositive. We must consider the administrative findings of fact to be conclusive, “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Zehatye v.

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.2006). The evidence does not compel a finding that Kesko would be likely to suffer torture if he returns to Bosnia-Herzegovina because it shows that torture is likely only for a person convicted of a crime (or perhaps in the military), and Kesko stated at the hearing he will not commit a crime. In addition, the record shows that Kesko’s ethnicity no longer is in the minority, so he is less at risk for torture. As recognized by the BIA, the immigration judge did consider the Andrejevich report, but the report does not compel a finding that Kes-ko is likely to be tortured.

Even when considered in the aggregate, Kesko has not shown that he more likely than not will be tortured if he returns to Bosnia-Herzegovina. PETITION DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.