NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 16
2014
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FERMIN MEJIA HERNANDEZ, AKA No. 13-70903
Fermin Mejia Gonzalez,
Agency No. A201-236-639
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted September 8, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Fermin Mejia Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
findings and mixed questions of law and fact for substantial evidence, and questions
of law de novo. Bojnoordi v. Holder, 757 F.3d 1075, 1077 (9th Cir. 2014). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Hernandez argues that we should import the regulatory definition of an
“arriving alien,” 8 C.F.R. § 1001.1(q), into the statutory provision setting forth the
one-year time limit for filing an asylum application, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). The
term “arriving alien” does not appear anywhere in the language of § 1158(a)(2)(B)
and is therefore irrelevant in interpreting that provision.
Because Hernandez’s application for asylum was untimely, it is statutorily
barred unless he can demonstrate the existence of changed circumstances that
materially affect his eligibility for asylum. See id. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D). We lack
jurisdiction to review Hernandez’s argument that the BIA misinterpreted his
testimony regarding what would happen if he were to return to Guatemala. See id.
§ 1158(a)(2)(D), (3). Hernandez has not pointed to anything in the record
indicating a change in country circumstances that would materially affect his
eligibility for asylum.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that there was no nexus
between the attacks Hernandez suffered and his membership in a particular social
group. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s
desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random
2
violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Hernandez’s
withholding of removal claim thus fails.
Finally, Hernandez’s CAT claim fails because the type of economic
deprivation that Hernandez describes does not amount to torture. See Vitug v.
Holder, 723 F.3d 1056, 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding that economic
deprivation arising from the nonresident’s inability to find a job in the Philippines
did not amount to torture).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3