FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALVADOR ERNESTO RODRIGUEZ- No. 10-73600
ROSALES,
Agency No. A098-801-926
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October, 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Ernesto Rodriguez-Rosales, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
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 protection under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying his motion to remand. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.
2008), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Malhi v. INS,
336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Rodriguez-
Rosales failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on
account of a protected ground based on his experiences with gang members in El
Salvador. 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.”); see also
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act
“requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum
applicant’s persecution”). Thus, Rodriguez-Rosales’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1015-16.
We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Rodriguez-Rosales’s CAT claim
because he failed to exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
2 10-73600
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Rosales’s
motion to remand because he failed to demonstrate that his additional evidence was
previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 10-73600