Case ID: f-appx_707/html/0911-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lorena Lizabeth Barillas GALINDO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-74040
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted  December 18, 2017
    Filed December 21, 2017
    Eduardo A. Paredes, Attorney, Law Office of Eduardo A. Paredes, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lorena Lizabeth Barillas Galindo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and -withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Barillas Galindo established extraordinary or changed circumstances to excuse her untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, we deny the petition as to asylum.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Barillas Galindo’s contentions as to past persecution. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Barillas Galindo failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Thus, Barillas Galindo’s withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.