Case ID: f-appx_485/html/0238-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lindolfo ALVARENGA-TORRES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71430.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 12, 2012.
    Stephanie Thorpe, Rios-Cantor, P.S. Attorneys at Law, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Nehal Kamani, Carlton Frederick Sheffield, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lindolfo Alvarenga-Torres, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, asylum, and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion denials of motions to remand, de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir.2007), and for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that Alvaren-ga-Torres failed to make the requisite showing of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to be eligible for cancellation of removal. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005). We reject Alvarenga-Torres’s contention that it was impermissible for the agency to consider potential alternative means of immigrating to the United States in its hardship determination. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition as to Alvaren-ga-Torres’s cancellation of removal claim.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Alvarenga-Torres’s motion to remand based on its determination that the evidence of hardship Alvarenga-Torres submitted was insufficient to establish a prima facie case for cancellation of removal. See Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir.2010). Alvarenga-Torres’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider the hardship evidence cumulatively, mis-characterized evidence, and applied an incorrect hardship standard are not supported by the record.

Substantial evidence supports the agency finding that Alvarenga-Torres failed to show past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir.2000) (no evidence to show that guerillas imputed contrary political opinion to Peruvian police officer); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.2010) (“[a]n alien’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.”). Accordingly, Alvarenga-Torres’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.