NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
SANTIAGO NAVARRO-BERNAL, No. 12-73476
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-741-640
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Santiago Navarro-Bernal, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual determinations.
Donchev v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Navarro-Bernal’s request
for withholding of removal because he failed to establish nexus to a statutorily
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.”)
Navarro-Bernal’s contention that the BIA ignored his country-conditions
evidence in evaluating his request for CAT protection is unavailing because the
record contains no indication that the BIA did not consider this evidence. See
Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A]n alien
attempting to establish that the B[IA] . . . fail[ed] to consider relevant evidence
must overcome the presumption that it did review the evidence.”); see also Cole v.
Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir. 2011) (“When nothing in the record or the
[agency]’s decision indicates a failure to consider all the evidence, a ‘general
statement that [the agency] considered all the evidence before [it]’ may be
sufficient.” (citation omitted)).
2 12-73476
We lack jurisdiction to consider Navarro-Bernal’s current contention that his
California conviction carries a maximum possible sentence of only six months and
consequently does not bar him from eligibility for cancellation of removal, because
he failed to raise this argument before the BIA. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d
1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 12-73476