NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SAUL GOMEZ

- AGUILAR, AKA Saul Gomez Agular, Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 20

- 71350 Agency No. A098

- 570

- 798

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 14, 2023 * *
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges

. Saul Gomez

- Aguilar , a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“I J ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection u nder the Convention Against Torture

* 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

FEB 23 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 71350

(“CAT”) , and denying his motion to remand or terminate

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir . 2020). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motion s to reman d and to terminate proceedings

. See Movsisian v. Ashcroft , 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) ; Dominguez v. Barr , 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020)

. We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review , and remand. The record does not compel the conclusion that Gomez

- Aguilar established changed circumstances to excuse the untimely asylum application. See Singh v. Holder , 649 F.3d 1161, 1164

- 65 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (court retained jurisdiction to review legal or constitutional questions related to the one

- year filing deadline); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4) (changed circumstances defined ) . Thus,
Gomez

- Aguilar’s asylum claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gomez

Aguilar failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder , 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group i s established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”); Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by th eft or random violence by gang3 20

- 71350

members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Gomez

- Aguilar ’s withholding of removal claim fails. We do not consider Gomez

- Aguilar’s contention as to whether the Mexican government is unable or unwilling to protect him because the BIA did not deny relief on this ground

. S

ee Santiago

- Rodriguez v. Holder , 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limite d to the grounds relied on by the BIA) . We also do not consider his imputed political opinion claim because the agency did not reach it, and Gomez

- Aguilar does not contend the BIA erred in finding that t his claim was not properly before it

. S

ee id

. ; see also Corro

- Barragan v. Holder , 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Gomez

- Aguilar failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or a cquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico

. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Gomez

- Aguilar’s contention that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his proceedings in his motion to terminate is foreclosed by United States v. Bast ide

Hernandez , 39 F.4th 1187, 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice to appear does not deprive immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later notice provides hearing information).4 20

- 71350

As to the denial of his motion to remand, the agency did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court ’s decision in Niz

- Chavez v. Garland , 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), holding that a notice of hearing does not cure a statutorily deficient notice to
appear to trigger the cancellation of removal stop

- time provision. Thus, we grant the petition for review f

or the BIA to reconsider Gomez

- Aguilar ’s motion to

reman d in light of Niz

- Chavez

. See INS v. Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16

- 18 (2002) (per curiam)

. Each party must bear its own costs on appeal. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED

.