NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 18 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELMER LOPEZ-ORDENAS, No. 14-70304
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-155-265
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Elmer Lopez-Ordenas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications 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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual
findings for substantial evidence, Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1050
(9th Cir. 2013), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider any challenge to the IJ’s finding that Lopez-
Ordenas is statutorily ineligible for asylum following the reinstatement of his prior
removal order because he did not exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). We similarly lack jurisdiction to
consider Lopez-Ordenas’ arguments regarding cancellation of removal or his class
membership in Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal.
1991) because he failed to raise them before the BIA. See id.
Even if credible, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Lopez-
Ordenas’ withholding of removal claim because he failed to establish a nexus
between any past or feared future harm and a protected ground. See Parussimova
v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (under the REAL ID Act,
applicant must prove a protected ground is at least “one central reason” for
persecution). We lack jurisdiction to consider Lopez-Ordenas’ contentions
regarding membership in a particular social group, as he did not exhaust them
before the BIA. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 678.
2 14-70304
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Lopez-Ordenas’
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 removed to
Guatemala. See Alphonsus, 705 F.3d at 1049-50.
We reject Lopez-Ordenas’ contentions that the agency failed to consider all
of the evidence or relevant factors in assessing his claims. See Fernandez v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (applicant must overcome a
presumption that the BIA considered the evidence of record).
All pending motions and requests are denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 14-70304