N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SANTIAGO NAVAR

R O-B ER NAL, Pe titione r, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-73476 Age n c y No. A095-741-640 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 21, 2014 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, SILVER M AN, a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Santia go Na

va rro-B e rna l, a

native and c itiz e n

of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of a

n orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic at ions for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, prote c t ion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture 

# FIL ED JAN 24 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).(“ C AT” ), a

nd c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l. Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie wfor substa ntia l e vide n c e the B IA’ s fa c tua l de te rm inations. Donc h e v v . Muk ase y , 553 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th C ir. 2009). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dism iss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de nia l of Na

va rro-B e rna l’ s re que st for withholding of rem ova l be c a use he fa ile d to e sta

blish ne xus to a

sta tutorily prote c te d ground. Se e Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ An a lie n’ s de sire to be fre e from ha ra ssm e nt by

c rim ina l s m otiva

te d by the ft or random viole nc e by

ga ng m e m be rs be ars no ne xus to a prote c t e d ground.” ) Nava rro-B e rna l’ s c onte ntion tha t the B IA ignore d his c o untry -c onditions e vide nc e in e va luating his re que st for C AT prote c tion is una va iling be c a

u se the re c o rd c onta ins no indic ation tha t the B IA did not c onside r this e vide nc e . Se e Larita-Martine

z v . IN S , 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th C ir. 2000) (“ [A] n a lie n atte m pting to e sta

blish tha t the B [IA] . . . fa il[e d] to c onside r re le va nt e vide nc e m ust ove rc om e the pre sum

ption tha t it did re vie w the e vide nc e .” ); se ealso C olev . Holde r , 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ Whe n nothing in the re c ord or the [a ge nc y ] ’ s de c ision indic ate s a fa ilure to c onside r a ll thee vide nc e , a ‘ ge ne ra l sta te m e nt tha

t [the a ge nc y ] c onside re d a ll thee vide n c e be fore [it] ’ m a y be suffic i e nt.” (c ita

t ion omi tte d)). 1 2 - 7 3 4 7 6 2W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Nava rro-B e rna l’ s c urre nt c o nte ntion tha t his C a lifornia c onvic tion c arrie s a

m axim um possiblese nte nc e of only six m onths a

nd c onse q ue ntly doe s not ba

r him from e ligibility for c a

n c e lla tion of re m ova l, be c a

use he fa ile d to ra ise this a

rgum e nt be fore the B IA. Se e Tijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 2 - 7 3 4 7 6 3