Court Opinion

ID: 4661704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-19 21:00:44.248579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:33.032146
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED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

NOE ARENAS-ROSAS, AKA Noe Rosas,                No.    14-72937

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A077-152-343

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 17, 2021**

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

      Noe Arenas-Rosas, 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

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

      *
             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).
      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), and deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Arenas-Rosas

failed to establish that 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”). Thus, his withholding of

removal claim fails.

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Arenas-Rosas 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) (stating standard).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          2                                   14-72937