Case ID: f-appx_656/html/0292-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Carlos ZAPATA-SUSTAITA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70317 Agency No. [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ]
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    August 3, 2016
    
      Richard Miyamoto, Phung, Miyamoto <& Diaz, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA, Keith Ian McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Carlos Zapata-Sustaita, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for remand, Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

Zapata-Sustaita does not contest the BIA’s conclusion that any asylum claim would be time-barred. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Zapata-Sustaita failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for withholding of removal because he did not establish a nexus between the persecution he fears and a statutorily .protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An 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.”).

Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Zapata-Sustaita failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for CAT relief because he did not establish he would more likely than not face torture at the instigation of, or with the acquiescence of, the Mexican government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

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