NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIGUEL SANTANA-GUTIERREZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-70313 

Agency No. A205-466-371 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 9, 2022**

San Francisco, California

Before: RAWLINSON, BADE, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Miguel Santana-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for withholding of removal and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction 

* 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

AUG 12 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the denial of withholding 

of removal and CAT protection. Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 

2018). We deny the petition for review.

Santana-Gutierrez asserts that we must remand for further review because the 

IJ’s decision, affirmed by the BIA, predates our opinion in Barajas-Romero v. 

Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017). In Barajas-Romero, we held that, unlike an 

applicant for asylum, an applicant for withholding of removal must establish that a 

statutorily protected ground is “a reason” for his claimed persecution, as opposed to 

the heightened “one central reason.” Id. at 360.

Barajas-Romero does not require remand in this case. The IJ, affirmed by the 

BIA, determined that Santana-Gutierrez failed to show any nexus between a 

statutorily protected ground and the harm that he suffered. Santana-Gutierrez 

asserted that he fears returning to Mexico “because of the violence from the drug 

cartels and the gangs,” and because of “[t]he delinquency there” and “[t]he police 

themselves.” The IJ concluded that Santana-Gutierrez’s “unfortunate” experiences

“were in no way related to any particular social group or for any reason other than 

he happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and that everyone in Mexico 

is subject to this.” The IJ further stated that Santana-Gutierrez failed to show that 

“anyone in Mexico would hurt him for any of the reasons contained under our 

Immigration laws,” and that Santana-Gutierrez only established general conditions 
3 

of “serious lawlessness and violence.”

The BIA affirmed the IJ’s findings and determined that Santana-Gutierrez’s 

claims “appear to be based upon a fear of general conditions of indiscrimina[te]

crime and violence, which is insufficient for a grant of withholding of removal.” See 

Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free 

from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang 

members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Considering the foregoing

findings, Barajas-Romero is inapposite here. See Singh v. Barr, 935 F.3d 822, 827 

(9th Cir. 2019) (holding that no remand is required, despite asserted Barajas-Romero 

error, when agency found that there was “no nexus” between the harm suffered and 

a protected ground).

Santana-Gutierrez’s sole argument is that his withholding claim should be 

remanded under Barajas-Romero. Thus, any other arguments challenging the denial 

of withholding of removal and CAT protection are waived. See Jie Cui v. Holder, 

712 F.3d 1332, 1338 n.3 (9th Cir. 2013).

PETITION DENIED.