N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ALEJANDR O R

AM IREZ-GALLAR

DO, AKA B e rtin Ga lla

rdo, AKA Elm oc hom o M onike r, AKA B e rtin Ram i re z Ga lla rdo, Pe titione r, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-73711 Age n c y No. A205-310-474 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 Oc tobe r 14, 2014 * * B e fore : LEAVY, GOULD, a n d B ER Z ON, C irc uit Judge s . Ale ja ndro R am ire z -Ga lla

rdo, a native and 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 issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic at ion for a sy lum , 

# FIL ED OCT 20 2014 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).withholding of rem o v a l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture (“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 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, Ze haty ev . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184- 85 (9th C ir. 2006), a

nd re v i e w de novo dueproc e ss c la im s, Hamazaspya n v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th C ir. 2009). W e de ny the pe tition for re v ie w. The re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t R am i re z -Ga lla

rdo e sta blishe d c ha

nge d or e x tra ordina

ry c irc um s ta

nc e s to e xc use his untime ly a sy lum a pplic ation. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Thus, we de ny the pe tition for re vie w a s to R am ire z -Ga lla rdo’ s a sy lum

c la im . Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t R am ire z Ga lla rdo fa ile d to e s ta

blish pa st pe rse c ution or a fe ar of future pe rse c ution on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground. Se eGormle y v . Ashc roft , 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th C ir. 2004) (ra

ndom c rim ina l a c ts bore no ne xus to a prote c te d ground); Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ An a lie n’ s de sire to be fre e from ha ra ssm e nt by

c rim i na l s m otiva

te d by the ft or ra

ndom viole nc e by

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

prote c te d ground.” ). Thus, R am ire z -Ga lla rdo’ s withholding of re m ova l c la im

fa ils. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of R am ire z Ga lla rdo’ s C AT c la im

be c a use he fa ile d to de m onstra te it is more like ly

tha n not 1 2 - 7 3 7 1 1 2he would betorture d at the instiga tion of, or with the

a c quie s c e nc e of the M e xic an gove rnm e nt. Se eSilay a v . Muk ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2008). Fina lly , we re

je c t R am i re z -Ga lla

rdo’ s due proc e ss c la im s be c a use the re c o rd doe s not support his c onte ntions of IJ bia s or e rror by the B IA. Se eLata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quiring e rror to pre va il on a due proc e ss c la im ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 3 7 1 1 3