N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M AUR IC IO LOPEZ-C R UZ, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-73421 Age n c y No. A087-596-081
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2015 ** B e fore : LEAVY, C ALLAHAN, a nd M . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s. M a uric io Lope z -C ruz , a

native an d c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism i ssing his a p p e a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ion for a s y lum , withholding of
re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(“ C AT” ). Our 

# F IL ED MAY26 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, Silay a v . Muk ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th C ir. 2008), a nd we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. Lope z -C ruz doe s not c h a lle nge the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t his untime ly
a sy lum a pplic ation wa s not e xc use d by c ha nge d or e xtra ordina

ry c i rc um sta

nc e s. Se e Martine

z-Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th C i r. 1996) (issue s not supporte d by argum e nt

are de e m e d a

ba ndone d). In light of this dispositive de te rm i nation, wedo not re a c h Lope z -C ruz ’ s c o nte ntions re g arding the m e rits of his a sy lum c la i m , a

n d de ny the pe tition a s to Lope z -C ruz ’ s a sy lum c la im
. W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Lope z -C ruz ’ s c onte ntion tha t he e sta blishe d pa st pe rse c ution in pa

rt ba se d on ha

rm to his fa m ily m e m be rs. Se eBarron v
. Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004) (this c ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to re vie w c la im s not ra ise d to thea ge nc y ). Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t Lope z -C ruz fa ile d to e sta blish hesuffe re d ha

rm rising to the le ve l of pe rse c ution. Se e W ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th C ir. 2009) (re c ord did not c om pe l c onc l usion tha

t disc rim inatory m istre atm e nt of pe titione r am ounte d to pe rse c ution). Substa ntia l e vide nc e a l so supports the B IA’ s de te rm i nation tha

t Lope z -C ruz fa ile d to e sta blish tha t it is m ore like l y tha

n not he will bepe rse c ute d if re turne d to M e xic o. Se eSingh v
. IN S , 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th 2 1 2
- 7 3 4 2 1C ir. 1998) (pe titione r m ust show risk m

ore spe c i fic tha

n a “ ge ne ra l iz e d or ra

ndom possibility

of pe rse c ution” ); se e also Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe titione r’ s “ de s ire to be fre e from ha ra ssm e nt by c rim ina ls m o tiva te d by the ft or ra

n d om viole nc e by ga

ng m e m be rs be ars no ne xus to a

prote c t e d ground” ). In light of our c onc lusion re ga rding the B IA’ s findings, we re je c t Lope z -C ruz ’ s re que st for re m and. Thus, wede ny the pe tition a s to Lope z -C ruz ’ s withholding of rem o v a l c la im
. Fina lly , substa

ntia l e v ide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f be c a use Lope z -C ruz fa ile d to de m onstra te it is m ore like ly

tha n not hewould be torture d by

or with thec onse nt or a c q uie s c e n c e of the gove rnm e nt if re turne d to M e x ic o. Se e Silay a , 524 F.3d a t 1073. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

3 1 2
- 7 3 4 2 1