NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DARVIN ENRIQUE BETANCOURTGUZMAN, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Nos. 14-70190 

19-70166

Agency No. A095-755-831 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 21, 2019**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Darvin Enrique Betancourt-Guzman, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 

petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his 

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 28 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-70190 

Against Torture (“CAT”) (No. 14-70190), and of the BIA’s order denying his 

motion to reconsider (No. 19-70166). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. GarciaMilian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review for abuse of 

discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 

400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). In petition No. 14-70190, we dismiss in part 

and deny in part the petition for review. In petition No. 19-70166, we deny the 

petition for review.

As to petition No. 14-70190, we lack jurisdiction to consider BetancourtGuzman’s contention that his 2008 criminal conviction excuses the untimeliness of 

his asylum application because, as noted by the BIA, he failed to raise it to the IJ. 

See Matter of J-Y-C-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 260, 261 n.1 (BIA 2007) (issues not raised to 

the IJ are not properly before the BIA on appeal); see also Santiago-Rodriguez v. 

Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, 

we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

The record does not compel the conclusion that Betancourt-Guzman 

established changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 
3 14-70190 

8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4). Thus, Betancourt-Guzman’s asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that BetancourtGuzman failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears in Guatemala 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, 

Betancourt-Guzman’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Betancourt-Guzman failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be 

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government. See Aden v. 

Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 

(concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary state action for CAT 

relief).

We reject Betancourt-Guzman’s contention that the agency failed to set forth 

sufficient facts or analysis.

Betancourt-Guzman’s motion to terminate proceedings or remand (Docket 

Entry No. 24 in No. 14-70190) is denied. See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 

1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (initial notice to appear need not include time and 
4 14-70190 

date information to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court).

As to petition No. 19-70166, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying

Betancourt-Guzman’s motion to reconsider where he failed to identify any error of 

fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. See Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (discussing the standard for a motion to reconsider); see also Karingithi, 

913 F.3d at 1160-62; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must specify 

errors of fact or law in a prior decision).

Thus, the government’s motion for summary disposition (Docket Entry No. 

8 in 19-70166) is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review 

are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. 

Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (stating standard).

Betancourt-Guzman’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry 

No. 2 in 19-70166) is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this 

status. 

Betancourt-Guzman’s request for a stay of removal as set forth in his 

petition for review (Docket Entry No. 1 in 19-70166) is denied as moot. The 

temporary stay of removal shall terminate upon the issuance of the mandate.

No. 14-70190: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; 
5 14-70190 

DENIED in part.

No. 19-70166: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.