NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERTO JIMENEZ

- MARCIAL

,

Petitioner

,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 70194

Agency No

. A 092

- 932

- 321

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 31 , 2022 * *

Pasadena, California

Before: M. SMITH and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and DRAIN, ** * District

Judge.

Petitioner Roberto Jimenez

- Marcial , a n ative and cit izen of Mexico

,

petition s for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal s ’ ( “ BIA ” ) affirmance of

* This disposition is not appropriat e for publicat ion and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case i s suitable for decisi on

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Gershwin A. Drain, United States District Judge for

the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

SEP 2 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 the immigration j udge ’ s ( “ IJ ” ) denial of his application s for asylum, withholding of

removal , and relief under the Convention Against Tor ture ( “ CAT ” ). W e h av e

jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S .C

. § 1252

. Wang v. Sessions , 861 F.3d 1003, 1007

( 9th Cir. 2017). We review for sub stantial evidence the B I A ’ s factual findings.

Singh v. Holder , 753 F.3d 826, 830 ( 9th Cir. 2014); Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d

1034, 1 03 9 ( 9t h Cir. 2010). Substantial evidence mea ns th e f actual finding is

“ supported by reaso nable, substantial, and probative evid e nce in the record. ”

Melkoni an v. Ashcroft , 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny t h e p e t i t i o n

.

1. The BIA affirmed the IJ’ s denial of asylum as untimely because the

asylum application was not filed within one year of Jimenez

- Marcial’s arrival in

the United States and he did not establish that he qualified for an exception to the

filing deadline. Because Jimenez

- Marcia l did n ot raise any arguments related to

the untimeliness of his asylum application in his open ing brief, he has waived this

claim. See Corro

- Barragan v. Holder , 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013).

We deny the petition as to the asylum claim because the ti meliness of the

application is dispositive.

2. Jimenez

- Marcial argues the BIA erred in a ffirming the IJ’s conclusion

that he did not prove his eligibility for withholding of removal because he did not

show the persecution he feared was on ac count o f membe rship in a cognizable

particular social group

. E ven if Jimenez

- Marcial established a cognizable3 particular social group , the B I A correctly concluded he could not show the

req uired nexus between pas t a nd future harm and a protected g ro und ba s ed on h i s

m e m b e r s h i p i n h i s three claimed part i cular social groups. T he record before the

B I A was that Jimenez

- Marcial was targeted in Mexico City because the L a

M a r i n e r o s gang want ed his assistance with their criminal enterprise, including for

bank robbery, and not be cause of his me mbership in any of the three claimed

particular social groups. Jime nez

- Marcial t estified that he was targe ted only after

his parents left for the United States because the gang targets young boys that are

abandoned by th eir parents. He tes tifie d t hat when he refused to rob a bank f or t h e

gang, they beat him and warned him not t o t ell authorities about the ir plan.

J i m e n e z

- M a r c i a l a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d k i d s i n O a x a c a h a r a s s e d a n d

b e a t h i m b e c a u s e h e w a s f r o m M e x i c o C i t y

, a s w e l l a s p r e s s u r e d h i m t o j o i n t h e i r

r a n k s

.

T hi s t e s t i m o n y supports the conclusion that the gang mem bers were

motivated by o t h e r r e a s o n s

, s u c h a s t h e i r financial gain

, rather than based on

J i m e n e z

- M a r c i a l ’ s t h r e e c l a i m e d p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l g r o u p s

. Se e Zeti n o v. Holder

,

622 F.3d 1007, 1016 ( 9th Cir

. 2010) ( “ [a]n alien ’ s desire to be free from

harassment by criminals motiva ted by theft or random violence by gang members

bears no nexus to a protected ground. ” )

.4 3. Finally, t he B I A correctly conc luded Jimen ez

- Marcial failed to

establi s h that it is “ more likely than not ” that h e will be tortured by or with the

acquiesc en ce of Me x ican officials. “ Acquiescence of a public official requires that

th e public official , pr ior to the activity constituting t ort ur e, have aware ness of such

activity and the reafter breach his or her legal responsibility to interven e to prevent

s uch activity. ” 8 C.F.R. ' 1208.18(a)(7). Acquiescence is shown for purpose s of

CAT protection when they are likely to “ turn a blind eye t o t or ture. ” Zheng v.

Ash croft , 332 F.3d 1186, 1196 ( 9th Cir. 2003)

.

Jimen ez

- Marcial did not present a n y e v i d e n c e t h a t h e w o u l d b e t o r t u r e d

u p o n h i s r e t u r n t o M e x i c o

, o r t h a t t h e M e x i c a n g o v e r n m e n t a c q u i e s c e d i n a n y

a l l e g e d t o r t u r e

. J i m e n e z

- M a r c i a l t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s a u n t w e n t t o t h e p o l i c e a n d f i l l e d

o u t a r e p o r t a f t e r h e w a s b e a t e n b y t h e L a M a r i n e r o s g a n g

, b u t t h e p o l i c e d i d n o t d o

a n y t h i n g t o p u n i s h t h e perpetrators

. “ E v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p o l i c e w e r e a w a r e o f a

p a r t i c u l a r c r i m e

, b u t f a i l e d t o b r i n g t h e p e r p e t r a t o r s t o j u s t i c e

, i s n o t i n i t s e l f

s u f f

i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h acquiescence i n t h e c r i m e

. ” G a r c i a

- M i l i a n v

. H o l d e r

, 7 5 5

F

. 3 d 1 0 2 6

, 1 0 3 4 ( 9 t h C i r

. 2 0 1 4 ) ; s e e a l s o A n d r a d e

- G a r c i a v

. L y n c h

, 8 2 8 F

. 3 d 8 2 9

,

8 3 6

- 3 7 ( 9 t h C i r

. 2 0 1 6 ) ( “ [ A ] g e n e r a l i n e f f

e c t i v e n e s s o n t h e g o v e r n m e n t ’ s p a r t t o

i n v e s t i g a t e a n d p r e v e n t c r i m e w i l l n o t s u f f

i c e t o s h o w acquiesc ence

. ” )

. Because

Jimen ez

- Marcial failed to present comp ell ing evidence that any government5 official w ill likely torture him or acquiesce in his tort ure by gangs , he is not

en titled to CAT pro tection

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW D E N I E D

.