Court Opinion

ID: 6500461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-15 20:00:37.299711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:14.625418
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 15 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WEINER ANIBAL RODAS MIRANDA,                    No.    16-70219

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A206-774-793

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

                Respondent.

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

                               Submitted July 12, 2022**

Before:      SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Weiner Anibal Rodas Miranda, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

pro se for 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

      *
             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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-

85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo claims of due process violations in

immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.

2004). We deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rodas

Miranda failed to establish the harm he fears would be on account of a protected

ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if

membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show

that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”);

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 do not reach Rodas

Miranda’s contentions regarding the cognizability of his proposed particular social

group because the agency did not deny relief on that ground. See Santiago-

Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the

grounds relied on by the BIA). Thus, Rodas Miranda’s asylum and withholding of

removal claims fail.

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

Rodas Miranda failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or

                                          2                                  16-70219
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See

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

      Rodas Miranda’s contentions that the agency violated his due process rights

fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error and prejudice are

required to prevail on a due process claim).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         3                                   16-70219