NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENIGNO GARCIA-CALLEJAS, No. 15-70265
Petitioner, Agency No. A076-228-963
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Benigno Garcia-Callejas, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
*
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 is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.
2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the social group Garcia-Callejas presents for
the first time in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th
Cir. 2004) (no subject-matter jurisdiction over legal claims not presented in
administrative proceedings below).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal
because Garcia-Callejas failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears from
gangs and a protected ground. See 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”).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Garcia-Callejas failed to establish that it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if returned to
Honduras. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
Finally, we reject Garcia-Callejas’s due process contention regarding IJ bias
because he did not show error. See Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2 15-70265
2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 15-70265