NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

JAIME GARCIA

- TORRES,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 73214 Agency No. A070

- 561

- 698

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 26, 2020 * *
Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND , Circuit Judges. Jaime Garcia

- Torres , a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions for review of the Board of Im migration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

* 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

OCT 29 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 15

- 73214

findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder , 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Garcia

- Torres failed to establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution

. See Nagoulko v. INS , 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive” ( citation and internal quotation marks omitted))

. We reject Garcia

Torres’ s contention that the agency should have considered harm to his s tep

brothers i n its past persecution analysis. See Wakkary v. Holder , 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (past persecution based on harm to others requires showing that the persecution was part of “a pattern of persecution closely tied to” petitioner ( ci tation and internal quotation marks omitted))

. S ubstantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Garcia

- Torres failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground , including membership in a family

based social group

. See Ayala v. Holder , 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “ persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such
group ” ) ; Zetino v. H

older , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s3 15

- 73214

“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, Garcia

Torres’ s withholding of removal claim fai ls.
S ubstantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Garcia

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

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

- Torres’ s contentions that the agency violated his right to due process fail. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) ( requiring error to prevail on a due process claim ) ; see also Larita

- Martinez v. INS , 220 F.3d 1092,
1095

- 96 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must overcome the presumption that BIA considered all relevant evidence)

. As stated in the court’s January 8, 2016 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuan ce of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.