NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSENDO BLANCO-BAUTISTA, No. 15-70946
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-090-554
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an
Immigration Judge’s Decision
Submitted September 13, 2016**
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Rosendo Blanco-Bautista, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and
thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. 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, Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, No. 13-74115, 2016 WL
3924013, at *4 (9th Cir. July 7, 2016), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Blanco-Bautista failed
to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a protected
ground, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(c), because the evidence demonstrates the cartel
targeted Blanco-Bautista in furtherance of its criminal enterprise, which does not
support a finding for persecution on account of a protected ground,
see Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act
“requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum
applicant’s persecution”); 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.”);
Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal
retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). We reject Blanco-
Bautista’s contention that he was entitled to a presumption of future persecution.
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Blanco-Bautista
failed to show a reasonable possibility that he would be tortured by the government
2 15-70946
of Mexico or with its consent or acquiescence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(c); Garcia-
Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 2013).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-70946