Court Opinion

ID: 4661713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-19 21:00:45.090148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:15.253019
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 19 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOEL MARTIN CAZOLES-PEDRAZA,                    No.    15-71012
AKA Joel Martin Cazolespedraza,
                                                Agency No. A201-238-000
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 16, 2021**

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

      Joel Martin Cazoles-Pedraza, 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 application for withholding of removal.

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

      *
             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).
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,

1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cazoles-

Pedraza failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution 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”). We

lack jurisdiction to consider Cazoles-Pedraza’s contention regarding domestic

violence. 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, Cazoles-

Pedraza’s withholding of removal claim fails.

      As stated in the court’s June 25, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal

remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                          2                                    15-71012