Court Opinion

ID: 4448213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-10-18 20:00:25.052635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:36:48.580399
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 18 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HUGO RAMIREZ-MENDOZA,                            No.   15-73291

                Petitioner,                      Agency No. A206-264-278

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted October 15, 2019**

Before:      FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

      Hugo Ramirez-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

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

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

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

      *
             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 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, even if

credible, Ramirez-Mendoza failed to establish he 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”). To

the extent Ramirez-Mendoza asserts he is a member of the particular social group

of family, we lack jurisdiction to consider this claim as he failed to raise it before

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

jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Thus, Ramirez-

Mendoza’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Ramirez-Mendoza 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. See

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

      The government’s motion for reconsideration (Docket Entry No. 30) is

                                           2                                     15-73291
denied as moot.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                3                          15-73291