FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 01 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAVIER GUZMAN-URBANO, No. 13-73138
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-686-033
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Javier Guzman-Urbano, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 asylum,
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir.
2011) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA concluded that Guzman-Urbano’s asylum claim was time-barred,
and that his failure to file a timely asylum application also rendered him ineligible
for humanitarian asylum. Guzman-Urbano has not challenged these dispositive
determinations. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are
waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to Guzman-Urbano’s asylum claim.
Guzman-Urbano claims that his family members suffered persecution in
Mexico in the past through criminal extortion demands, and he fears future harm
based on extortion by unknown criminals. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination that Guzman-Urbano failed to establish a nexus to a protected
ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009)
(protected ground must be ‘one central reason’ for persecution); Zetino v. Holder,
622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“desire to be free from harassment by
criminals motivated by theft . . . bears no nexus to a protected ground”). In light of
this conclusion, we need not address Guzman-Urbano’s other challenges to the
2 13-73138
BIA’s denial of withholding of removal. Thus, Guzman-Urbano’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief because
Guzman-Urbano failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico if he is
returned. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-73138