NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Immigration 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 APPEALS
2 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 GarciaTorres’s contention that the agency should have considered harm to his stepbrothers in 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 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Substantial 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 familybased 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. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s 
3 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, GarciaTorres’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial 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 issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.