NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SERGIO ISRAEL ALVEAR-MARTINEZ, 

AKA Sergio Alvear-Martinez, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-73199 

Agency No. A208-411-837 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

 Submitted February 19, 2019**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 

Sergio Israel Alvear-Martinez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

 

* 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

FEB 21 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-73199 

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial 

evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-

85 (9th Cir. 2006), and review de novo claims of due process violations in 

immigration proceedings, Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We 

dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Alvear-Martinez’s contention that the IJ 

violated his due process rights because he failed to raise the claim to the BIA. See 

Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). We also lack 

jurisdiction to consider Alvear-Martinez’s contentions regarding particular social 

groups and political opinion that he did not raise to the agency. See id.

Alvear-Martinez does not challenge the agency’s dispositive conclusion that 

his asylum application was untimely, or raise any arguments challenging the 

agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 

1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s 

opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to Alvear-Martinez’s

asylum and CAT claims.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that AlvearMartinez failed to establish that any harm he experienced or fears in Mexico was 
3 17-73199 

or would be on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 

1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (applicant’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”); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 

2001) (harm based on personal retribution is not persecution on account of a 

protected ground). Thus, we deny the petition as to Alvear-Martinez’s withholding 

of removal claim.

We reject Alvear-Martinez’s contention that the BIA violated his due 

process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring 

error to prevail on a due process claim).

Finally, Alvear-Martinez’s motion to remand, set forth in his opening brief, 

and motion to supplement the administrative record, Docket Entry No. 21, are

denied. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s 

review is limited to the administrative record). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.