Court Opinion

ID: 9374324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 20:00:47.138356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:46.686423
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OSCAR MARTINEZ-VASQUEZ,                         No.    20-72324

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A205-575-960

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Oscar Martinez-Vasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

      *
             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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir.

2020). We deny the petition for review.

      Because Martinez-Vasquez does not challenge the agency’s determination

that his asylum application is untimely, this issue is forfeited. See Rios v. Lynch,

807 F.3d 1123, 1125 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015).

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Martinez-

Vasquez failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a

protected ground. 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

Martinez-Vasquez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

      Because Martinez-Vasquez does not challenge the agency’s determination

that he failed to establish eligibility for CAT protection, this issue is forfeited. See

Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                           2                                    20-72324