NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
JOSE HERNANDEZ JASSO, No. 15-71038
Petitioner, Agency No. A017-178-699
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.
Jose Hernandez Jasso, 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 jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 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 Hernandez Jasso 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
criminals targeted Hernandez Jasso for money and he fears future targeting by
unknown criminals, 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”). We reject Hernandez Jasso’s
contention that the IJ applied an incorrect legal standard.
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Hernandez
Jasso failed to establish a reasonable possibility that he would be tortured by the
government of Mexico or with its consent or acquiescence. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.31(c); Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2013).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 15-71038