Simon Acevedo-Ramirez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

                                                                           FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FEB 25 2014

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS



                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


SIMON ANDRES ACEVEDO-                            No. 11-73897
RAMIREZ,
                                                 Agency No. A200-952-711
               Petitioner,

  v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.


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

                             Submitted February 18, 2014**

Before:        ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

       Simon Andres Acevedo-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for

          *
             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).

                                                                               11-73897
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

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

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and review de novo due process

claims. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011-12 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny

the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Acevedo-

Ramirez failed to establish past mistreatment or a fear of future mistreatment in

Colombia on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555

F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground

represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); Zetino, 622

F.3d at 1016 (“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.”). Consequently, his withholding of removal claim fails.

      The BIA found Acevedo-Ramirez did not contest the IJ’s finding that his

asylum application was untimely and that no exception to the one-year filing

deadline applied. Acevedo-Ramirez does not challenge the BIA’s finding. See

Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). Even if his

asylum application were timely, Acevedo-Martinez’s asylum claim would fail. See

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i).


                                          2                                    11-73897
      Acevedo-Martinez does not raise any substantive challenge to the denial of

his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259 (“[i]ssues raised in a brief

that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned”).

      We reject Acevedo-Martinez’s due process contentions regarding the IJ’s

treatment of his claim. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)

(requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

      Finally, we reject Acevedo-Martinez’s request for a remand.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                          3                                    11-73897