NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FELIPE E. ARAGON TRINIDAD,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 18

- 71244 Agency No. A070

- 743

- 894

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 13, 2022 * * San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and WU, ** * District Judge. Felipe Aragon Trinidad, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions our Court for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing

* 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).

*** The Honorable George H. Wu, United States District Judge for the Centra l District of California, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUN 15 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for withholding of removal an d protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review the agency’s factual findings , including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial
evidence. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 103 9 (9 th Cir. 2010). Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision while citing Matter of Burbano , 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994), and adding its own analysis, we review both the IJ and BIA
decisions. Cordoba v. Barr , 962 F.3d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny Aragon Trinidad’s petition for review. In his opening brief, Aragon Trinidad does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination. W e hold that he waive d consideration of the adverse credibility
determination

. See Martinez

– Serrano v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996).
But even absent waiver , we hold that substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of his application for withholding of removal. To qualify for withholding of removal, a noncitizen must establish by a “clear probability” that his “li fe or freedom would be threatened” upon return because of his “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). The totality of the circumstances supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination, see Alam v. Garland , 11 F.4th 1133, 1136

- 373

(9th Cir. 2021) (en banc), and Aragon Trinidad’s documentary evidence does not compel concluding that he is entitled to withholding, see Al

- Harbi v. INS , 242 F.3d 882, 890

- 91, 894 (9th Cir. 2001). Aragon Trinidad contends that he has established a clear probability that his life would be threatened (1) on account of his membership in his family and also (2) on account of his anti

- gang political opinion.
The IJ rejected his claim of a nexus based up on his famil y relationship, and the IJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. 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 m embers bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Aragon Trinidad’s earlier applications for asylum do not mention any harm based on his uncles or famil y relationship s
. Nor does the supporting documentation Aragon Trinidad provided corroborate his claimed fear of harm based on membership in his family. The letter from the mayor of his
hometown confirms that someone attacked Aragon Trinidad in 2016, but the mayor said it was an “unknown person.” This document does not connect the
harm Aragon Trinidad suffe red to a famil y relationship or anti

- gang political opinion. The second document, the letter from a paralegal, confirms that his uncles were killed by cartel members, but it does not corroborate Aragon Trinidad’s claim that he had a n objective basis to fear harm because of these4

murders or his famil y status. The BIA also rejected his contention that he will be harmed on account of
his anti

- gang political opinion because he did not provide any evidence that his opposition to gangs was politically motiva ted

. See Khudaverdyan v. Holder , 778 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2015)

. In his briefing, Aragon Trinidad merely contends that he “holds the same negative political [opinion] as his uncles regarding the cartel” and that this political opinion was one centra l reason for the harm he faced. Without any documentary support , this contention does not suffice to show that the BIA’s finding is not supported by substantial evidence. Withholding of removal “is not available to victims of indiscriminate violence, un less they are singled out on account of a protected ground.” Delgado

Ortiz v. Holder , 600 F.3d 1148, 1151, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). The IJ’s conclusion
that Aragon Trinidad fears general violence and extortion in Mexico is supported by substantial evidence, and fears of general violence are insufficient for withholding of removal. Zetino , 622 F.3d at 1016

. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.