FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATANAEL BARRIOS-ALVAREZ, No. 13-71237
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-858-085
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Natanael Barrios-Alvarez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and
*
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).
cancellation of removal. 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 we deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
We deny the petition with respect to Barrios-Alvarez’s asylum claim
because the record does not compel the conclusion that he established changed or
extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See
8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088,
1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Barrios-Alvarez
failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be persecuted in Guatemala
on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734,
740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (applicant must prove that a protected ground will be at
least ‘one central reason’ for the persecutors’ acts); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d
1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’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”); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)
(possibility of future persecution too speculative). We reject Barrios-Alvarez’s
contention that the BIA’s analysis was insufficient. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
2 13-71237
F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, Barrios-Alvarez’s withholding of removal
claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Barrios-Alvarez’s
CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government if
returned. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s finding that Barrios-
Alvarez failed to demonstrate the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship to qualify for cancellation of removal. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,
424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-71237