NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FERMIN LOPEZ-GALICIA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-71516 

Agency No. A078-754-713 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 22, 2021**

Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Fermin Lopez-Galicia, 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 decision denying his applications for withholding of removal, 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of 

* 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

JUN 24 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-71516 

removal. 

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo 

questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except 

to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing 

statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). 

We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. 

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in 

part the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lopez-Galicia 

failed to establish ten years of continuous physical presence, as would be required 

for eligibility for cancellation of removal. The record includes a signed Form I826 consenting to a departure that took place less than 10 years before the issuance 

in 2010 of his Notice to Appear. Lopez-Galicia has not shown that, when he 

signed Form I-826 in 2001, his acceptance of administrative voluntary departure in 

lieu of removal proceedings was not knowing and voluntary. See 8 U.S.C. §

1229b(b)(1)(A); Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(requiring some evidence that the alien was informed of and accepted the terms of 

the voluntary departure agreement). Lopez-Galicia’s testimony does not compel a 

contrary conclusion, where he was given an opportunity to read the Form I-826 

before signing it, and where he has not shown that the representations of 
3 15-71516 

immigration officials were inaccurate or misleading. Cf. Ibarra-Flores v. 

Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 619-20 (9th Cir. 2006) (insufficient evidence that alien 

knowingly and voluntarily accepted voluntary departure where record did not 

contain the voluntary departure form and alien’s testimony suggested that he 

accepted return due to misrepresentations by immigration authorities).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Lopez-Galicia 

failed to establish that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.1 

See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [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.”). Thus, LopezGalicia’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Lopez-Galicia failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured 

by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico.

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate. 

1

 Lopez-Galicia contends that he belongs to a cognizable particular social group as 

a “Mexican male adult with long residence and family ties in the United States.” 

We lack jurisdiction to consider this claim because Lopez-Galicia did not raise it 

before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (the 

court lacks jurisdiction to review unexhausted claims). 
4 15-71516 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.