NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE CARLOS ZAPATA-SUSTAITA, No. 14-70317
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-248-426
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Carlos Zapata-Sustaita, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for
*
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).
remand, Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny
the petition for review.
Zapata-Sustaita does not contest the BIA’s conclusion that any asylum claim
would be time-barred. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5
(9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Zapata-Sustaita
failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for withholding of removal because he
did not establish a nexus between the persecution he fears and a statutorily
protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir.
2009); 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.”).
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Zapata-
Sustaita failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for CAT relief because he did
not establish he would more likely than not face torture at the instigation of, or
with the acquiescence of, the Mexican government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524
F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-70317