FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 26 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODOLFO SILVA-MARTINEZ, No. 13-72873
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-168-148
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Rodolfo Silva-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of 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
*
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).
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings and de novo questions of law. Husyev v. Mukasey,
528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Silva-Martinez’s humanitarian asylum
claim because he failed to raise it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Silva-Martinez did not
suffer past persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir.
2009) (past harm did not cumulatively rise to the level of persecution, and harm to
close associates not “part of a pattern of persecution closely tied to” petitioner).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Silva-Martinez did
not meet his burden to demonstrate that a protected ground would be ‘one central
reason’ for any future persecution. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734,
742 (9th Cir. 2008); see also 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.”). Thus, his asylum claim fails.
2 13-72873
Because Silva-Martinez did not establish eligibility for asylum, he cannot
meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Silva-Martinez’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 government if returned to Mexico.
See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 13-72873