NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS I. GONZALEZ LOZANO,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 16

- 72215 Agency No. A077

- 126

- 251

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 14, 2022 * * Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ, SMITH, ** * and BADE, Circuit Judges. Jesus I. Gonzalez Lozano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissal of his appeal challenging the

* 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).

*** The Honorable D. Brooks Smith, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUN 9 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Immigration Judge ’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of
removal , and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) . Ju risdiction exists under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We deny the petition for review. Because the BIA conducted an independent review of the IJ’s opinion without adopting it , “ [ o ] ur review is limited to the BIA’s decision.” Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland , 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022) (as amended)

. We review “ the factual findings underlying the BIA’s determinations ” for substantial evidence

. Id. “To prevail under the substantial evidence standard, the petitioner ‘must show that the evidence not only supports, but compels the conclusion that these findings and decisions are erroneous.’” Davila v. Barr , 968 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Cordon

- Garcia v. INS , 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir. 20 00 )) ; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). The BIA’s legal conclusion s are subject to de novo review.
Davila , 968 F.3d at 1141.
1. We uphold the agency’s denial of asylum. Eligibility for asylum requi res that Gonzalez

- Lozano show that “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be one central reason for persecuting” him. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). In other words, he must establish a “nexus ” between the persecution suffered or
feared and one of the five protected ground s
. Ba g hdasaryan v. Holder , 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010). The BIA determined that Gonzalez

- Lozano had failed3

to meet his burden of demonstrating a nexus. It explained that the IJ had not clearly
erred in finding that the “ motivation for the harm suffered

. . . was based on the perception that [Gonzalez

- Lozano] was an easy, available target

. ” Gonzalez

- Lozano do es not meaningfully challenge the agency’s determination that he failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground, so we deem this argument wa i ved. See
Martinez

- Serrano v. I.N.S. , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a
brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”). Even if
Gonzalez

- Lozano had not waived his challenge, s ubstantial evidence support s th e agency’s conclusions.
Gonzalez

- Lozano testified that he was stopped by police because they wanted a bribe of money or perfume, that Mexican police “try to intimidate people and

. . . take advantage of the way things are going with people,” and that he was beaten when he refused, on one occasion, to provide the Mexican police and judge with a
bribe. This does not demonstr ate nexus to a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (as amended) (“ An alien ’ s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft

. . . bears no nexus to a protected ground. ”).
2. We uphold the agency’s denial of Gonzalez

- Lozano’s claim for withholding of removal. To secure withholding of removal, an alien must show that h is “life or freedom4

would be threatened . . . because of” one of the five statutorily protected grounds. 8
U.S .C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). This means that he must “establish by objective evidence that it is more likely than not that he . . . will be subject to persecution upon deportation.” INS v. Cardoza

- Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987) ; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)

. For withholding, t he alien must also show a nexus, that is , that a protected ground is “a reason” for the feared persecution. Barajas

- Romero v. Lynch , 846 F .3d 351 , 35 8

– 5 9 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C))

. The IJ determined, and the BIA ag reed, that Gonzalez

- Lozano failed to establish the required nexus to obtain withholding of removal. We conclude that the record before

us does not compel a contrary conclusion , 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and therefore , uphold the agency’s denial o f withholding of removal. As with his asylum claim, Gonzalez

- Lozano fails to meaningfully challenge the agency’s determination that he failed to establish nexus, so this argument is
waived. Martinez

- Serrano , 94 F.3d at 1259 . Moreover, a s explained above, the record supports the agency’s conclusion that Gonzalez

- Lozano was harassed because he was an “easy, available target,” not because of any protected ground.
3. We uphold the agency’s denial of CAT relief

. “T o be eligible for relie f under CAT, an applicant bears the burden of establishing that [ he ] will more likely than not be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if removed to [his] native country. ” Xochihua

-5

Jaimes v. Barr , 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 20 20)

. Torture is de f ined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)( 2 ). The BIA
concluded that the IJ, having taken account of the “past physical abuse” Gonzalez

Lozano sustained, “properly rea s oned that [he] did not esta blis h a clear probability
of future torture ” and failed to meet his burden of proof. S ubstanti al evidence supports th is determinatio n
. The single beating and the subsequent detention
Gonzale z Lozano experienced for twenty minutes , in which he was not harmed , do
not compel the conclusion that he will more likely than not be tortured if returned to
Mexico. Accordingly, the re is no basis for grant ing relief under the CAT. 1
PETITION DENIED.

1 Because we conclude that Gonzalez

- Lozano has not shown that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured, we do n ot address his arguments concerning government acquiescence. See Garcia v. Wilkinson , 988 F.3d 1136, 1148 n.3 (9th Cir. 2021).