NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RENE ERNESTO GARCIA FARIAS, No. 15-72627
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-411-224
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Rene Ernesto Garcia Farias, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, and de novo due process contentions, Vilchez v. Holder,
682 F.3d 1195, 1198-99 (9th Cir. 2012), and we deny the petition for review.
We reject Garcia Farias’ contention that the agency violated his due process
rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1046 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
prevail on a due process claim).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Garcia Farias
failed to establish that a protected ground was “one central reason” for the harm he
experienced from his father, or that it would be for the harm he fears from his
father or cartels in Mexico. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th
Cir. 2008) (under the REAL ID Act, an applicant must prove a protected ground is
at least ‘one central reason’ for persecution); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d
1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’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, Garcia Farias’ asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016.
Garcia Farias’ CAT claim also fails because he did not demonstrate it is
more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a
2 15-72627
public official if returned to Mexico. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d
1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (“generalized evidence of violence and crime in
Mexico is not particular to Petitioners and is insufficient to meet this standard [for
relief under CAT]”).
We do not consider materials filed with the court that were not part of the
record before the agency. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en
banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record).
Finally, Garcia Farias’ request for a stay of removal is denied as unnecessary
in light of the October 20, 2015, order granting a temporary stay of removal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-72627