FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDRO GONZALEZ-JOSE, No. 11-73513
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-764-475
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Andro Gonzalez-Jose, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.
2009), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Gonzalez-Jose concedes his asylum application was time-barred. Thus, we
do not reach his arguments regarding the merits of his asylum claim.
Gonzalez-Jose testified he never experienced harm or mistreatment in
Guatemala, but he fears returning there because of crime and gangs. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s determination that he failed to establish past
persecution or 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 alien’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.”); Parussimova v.
Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (a protected ground must be “one
central reason” for an applicant’s persecution). We lack jurisdiction to consider
Gonzalez-Jose’s contentions regarding ethnicity, imputed political opinion, and
membership in a particular social group that he did not raise before the agency.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over
claims not raised before the agency). Accordingly, Gonzalez-Jose’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
2 11-73513
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Gonzalez-Jose failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Guatemala.
See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 11-73513